British Soldiers, American Revolution

Daniel Sutherland, 80th Regiment, and Elizabeth Rezeau

2012-02-12T14:41:00.000-08:00

This is an appropriate week to present a love story, one that illustrates the too-often overlooked impact of warfare and the itinerant military life on romance.

Daniel Sutherland was a young Scotsman who responded to the feverish call to arms that echoed throughout great Britain when France joined the war and invasion of the home islands became a real possibility. Sutherland enlisted in the 80th Regiment of Foot, a new regiment raised in the Edinburgh area in the first half of 1778. Within a year they were sent to bolster British forces in America, arriving in New York in August 1779.

Soon after arrival in America Daniel Sutherland was appointed corporal, an indication that he had taken well to military life and could be trusted with responsibility. After nearly two years of routine service in the garrison of New York the 80th Regiment boarded ships again, this time bound for Virginia. There they became part of Cornwallis's army, fighting at posts along the James River before establishing themselves in Yorktown. Here they endured the siege that sealed the course of the war. Sutherland and his fellow soldiers endured 18 months of captivity before being repatriated in early 1783.

The 80th Regiment returned to the New York area, landing on Staten Island and taking up cantonments near the town of Richmond. It was here that Daniel Sutherland's fate was sealed by forces more powerful than any adversary he had yet faced: he was smitten by love.

Sutherland met a local woman named Elizabeth Rezeau, whose father and uncle owned adjacent farms on the island. The family had pledged their loyalty to the crown when the British army arrived on the island in 1776. After fancying her from afar for some time Sutherland encountered her out walking one day among the Staten Island cherry trees, and pledged his loyalty to her.

Although sympathetic, Betsy Rezeau could not return his affections. She had been deceived by an officer from the Queen's Rangers, a regiment raised in America of men loyal to the British cause. Due either to professional obligation or romantic callousness he had abandoned her and their infant child. Her father disowned her, and she now lived with her pitying uncle. She would not cast her lot again with a soldier.

Devastated, Sutherland fell into a love-lorn malaise. He carved her name into a cherry tree where they'd spoke. He returned again and again to the spot. He lost his appetite, his strength, and his very will to live. Doctor Samuel Pleydell, surgeon's mate for the regiment, attended him to no avail.

At the beginning of August 1783, the 80th Regiment removed from Staten Island to man the lines at the northern tip of Manhattan. Daniel Sutherland bade farewell to the cherry trees and the prospect of again seeing his adorned Betsy Rezeau. On the 11th of August, he died.

This tragic story was observed by one of Sutherland's comrades in the 80th, a private soldier named Andrew Scott. Scott had a penchant for poetry, entertaining his fellow soldiers with songs of their experiences set to popular tunes. Years later, Scott published a book of songs including the one called "Betsy Rosoe." More detail about Scott, including the song lyric in its entirety, will appear in my forthcoming book British Soldiers, American War due for release in the fall of 2012.

There is a caveat that the identity of the young corporal who lost his will to live is uncertain; three corporals in the 80th Regiment died after the corps left Staten Island, one each in August, September and October. I've assumed that the first of them, Daniel Sutherland, is one about whom Scott wrote. The tale as related in Scott's song fit known facts well, even though the tragic hero cannot be identified for certain.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Richard Taylor, 63rd Regiment, and Mary Taylor

2012-02-05T19:30:00.000-08:00

At face value, the life and career of Richard Taylor seems typical enough. He was born in the parish of Charlton, near the town of Malmesbury in Wiltshire in about 1747. At the age of six, he went to Malmsbury to school which he attended for four years or so. He returned home, and at 14 years of age was apprenticed to a plasterer named Morley at St. Michael's Parish in the city of Bath. He was not indentured to Morley, that is, he was in training but not bound to stay for any period of time. He spent over five years in Morley's employ but before deciding he needed a change. Like many young tradesmen seeking something more interesting, he left his employer and joined the army.

Richard Taylor enlisted in the 63rd Regiment of Foot in 1767. The regiment was in Ireland at the time; he probably encountered a recruiting party at Bath, for British regiments often sent parties to various parts of the British Isles. Within two years, Taylor was in Bedford, England, probably as part of a recruiting party himself. He stayed for about a year, then returned to Ireland where he remained with the regiment until early 1775.

The 63rd Regiment was among the first reinforcements to arrive in Boston after the outbreak of hostilities on 19 April 1775. Indeed, they had embarked before the war broke out and arrived to find conditions quite different than expected. Richard Taylor apparently served well in the regiment, being appointed to corporal on 20 November. There is some evidence that he'd held that post before for a time, but this has not been confirmed.

One faced of the non-commissioned rank of corporal is that it was somewhat volatile - muster rolls show us that it was not unusual for a man to hold the position for only a few months or a year, then return to the ranks. A given man might spend several short stints as a corporal but never advance any higher, while others remained corporals for many years and others still moved through the rank to become serjeants. There are many possible reasons for this: a man could be reduced to private if his health was not sufficient to do the job of a corporal (there were only three corporals in each company); his performance in the roll might not have been suitable; he could have had disciplinary issues; or it may have been simply that another man proved even more qualified. Muster rolls tell us what happened but not why, and there are very few records of the internal workings of most regiments to answer the questions of why.

Regardless of the reason, Richard Taylor was reduced to private soldier some time in the first half of 1778, but appointed once more to corporal on 20 April 1779. On 19 March 1780 he was reduced yet again, only to be appointed once more on 24 December 1781.

It is here that we lose contact with this interesting man. No muster rolls for eight companies of the 63rd Regiment survive for the year 1782. On the rolls kept in 1783, Richard Taylor is gone. The eight battalion companies of the 63rd were prisoners of war during this time, having been incarcerated at Yorktown in October 1781. Whether Taylor died as a prisoner, deserted, escaped and joined another regiment, or was discharged from the army is not known.

There is one more facet of Richard Taylor's story that is not revealed in simple records like muster rolls. During his time in Bedford in 1768, Richard Taylor met a woman named Mary. They were married at St. Paul's Church in Bedford, but she stayed behind when he returned to his regiment in Ireland. She never heard from him again. By 1773, she was alone with a young child and seeking support as a pauper from her native parish of St. Paul's, Bedford. The poor laws, however, required her removal to her husband's last place of employment, that is, St. Michael's in Bath. It is this removal that affords us a record of the whole story, for St. Micheal's required proof that Richard Taylor had in fact been an apprentice there. A court heard the case in which Mary Taylor deposed her husband's history as she knew it. Also introduced as evidence was a deposition that Richard Taylor had given in 1768 when he was married. These two sources were accepted as proof of Richard Taylor's apprenticeship in Bath, and Mary Taylor was required to move there.

Mary Taylor was but one of many wives who remained in Great Britain while their soldier husbands served in faraway places. Some chose not to follow, some could not get passage from the army (which provided shipping for only a limited number of wives with each regiment) and could not make their own way, and some like Mary Taylor were abandoned. Regardless of the reason, some husbands never returned and some wives never learned their fate. In an age of limited communication, distance sometimes meant permanent separation.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Owen Smith, 63rd Regiment of Foot

2012-01-26T06:46:00.000-08:00

We have seen examples of soldiers who went to great length to desert from the army, and escaped prisoners of war who went to great lengths to return. This installment looks at a rare example of a deserter who went to great lengths to return.

In 1769, Captain Henry Bruen of the 63rd Regiment of Foot enlisted a man named Owen Smith. The recruit joined the ranks of the regiment and served dutifully until 1773 when the regiment was on duty in Dublin, Ireland. A robbery occurred and three soldiers of the 63rd, including Smith, were accused of having committed it. We haven't found any details of the robbery or desertion, but we do know that the 63rd left Dublin in early 1775. They marched to Cork, not to garrison that city but to board ships for America. The 63rd was one of four regiments to arrive in Boston within days of the battle of Bunker Hill. They continued to serve in the army under General Sir William Howe, leaving Boston in March 1776, regrouping in Halifax, landing on Staten Island in late June. By November they were in Westchester County, New York. They supported the forces that fought at White Plains and then reduced Fort Washington, but did not participate in either of those famous battles.

Owen Smith, in the mean time, initially fled from Dublin to Derry on the north coast of Ireland. He feared being arrested by civil authorities for robbery, but nonetheless wished to return to the army. He sent a letter to the Major of the regiment expressing his willingness to rejoin the ranks when the regiment left Dublin, but received no reply.

When he learned that the 63rd was bound for America, Smith determined to make good on his intentions. Derry was a seaport town, and he was able to obtain a passage across the ocean by indenting himself as a servant to a master in Philadelphia. Arriving there, he met a friend who paid twelve pounds to free him from indenture. This left him in debt to the friend, however, so he found work as a shoemaker to earn money. After six months he was able to pay his debt; he went to the town of Nottingham along the Susquehanna River where he continued to work for a while to earn money for himself.

By this time the call for soldiers was echoing throughout the country, and Owen Smith was pressured to enlist. He initially refused to bear arms but was threatened with being tarred and feathered. This induced him to consent to a four month enlistment in a Maryland regiment if he would be exempted from further service; he knew that it was the only way he'd be allowed to travel. And travel he did; with his fellow soldiers he soon arrived at Fort Lee in New Jersey, opposite Fort Washington. He learned that his own regiment was to stay in New Jersey, so he absconded and boarded a boat with some women who were on their way to the American garrison of Fort Washington.

On 16 November 1776, British forces stormed the outer works surrounding Fort Washington, forcing the garrison inside the fort to surrender. As Brigadier Samuel Cleaveland of the Royal Artillery approached the fort, he saw a man outside the gate waving his hat. Cleaveland waved back. The man approached, laid down three firelocks (muskets), and announced himself as Owen Smith, a deserter from the 63rd Regiment. He asked permission to go back and get two other men who's firelocks he'd brought, but those men refused to come. The general summoned a corporal to take Smith into British lines and asserted that Smith had surrendered himself willingly.

Owen Smith was put on trial for desertion three days later. He told the court his story, and there was no incriminating evidence against him. Captain Bruen, who has recruited Smith nine years before, was among those who testified and even remembered the letter Smith had written expressing a desire to return after the regiment left Dublin. The court nonetheless found Smith guilty and sentenced him to receive 1000 lashes. The verdict and sentence were sensible enough; regardless of Smith's reasons and his sustained effort to return, he had in fact deserted. Although this was a capital crime, the corporal sentence reflected Smith's willing return. In an act of mercy typical for cases of this nature, the commander in chief pardoned Smith and ordered him to return to his regiment.

Smith's return to the 63rd Regiment provides an example of the challenges faced by researchers in using British military documents. The muster rolls for the 63rd show Owen Smith as having been "entertained" (that is, enlisted) on 18 November 1776. While the nomenclature "returned from desertion" is often seen in muster rolls and is the proper annotation for this case, whoever prepared the roll for this time period annotated Smith in the same manner as recruits who had recently arrived from Great Britain. Were it not for the existence of the proceedings of Smith's trial, we would have no way of knowing he was the man who had deserted years before. There are other instances where names look tantalizingly similar but we can only guess whether we have a story of desertion and return or a simple case of two men with similar names.

A gap in the muster rolls of the 63rd Regiment prevents us from knowing Owen Smith's fate. He was in the regiment through the end of 1777, and no longer appears on the next available rolls covering the second half of 1778. Whether he died, was killed in battle, deserted again, was transferred to another regiment, or discharged from the army remains unknown. This is unfortunate because it would further reveal the character of this soldier who had such zeal for service that crossed an ocean to return to his regiment.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Edward Hall, 43rd Regiment of Foot

2012-01-12T07:25:00.000-08:00

At first glance, the case of Edward Hall of the 43rd Regiment of Foot seems typical enough. Hall, who had been enlisted in Yorkshire and became a greandier in the regiment, was absent from the 8 PM roll call in Boston on 11 October 1774. Following typical procedures his serjeant went to his tent to see if his necessaries (shirts, stockings and shoes) were missing, for soldiers who intended to desert often took extra clothing with them. The guard at Boston Neck was informed to be on the lookout for the missing soldier, and his absence was reported to the officers of the 43rd.

In the mean time, Captain Robert McLeroth of the 64th Regiment was making his way towards Castle William on a road about four miles from the British encampment in Boston. At about 11 PM he came upon two grenadiers a few yards apart from each other. He asked the first one if he had a pass, upon which both soldiers turned and ran. McLeroth gave chase and caught up with the second one, Edward Hall. Hall immediately submitted to being caught, but seemed apprehensive for the whereabouts of his comrade, Timothy Bremer, also a grenadier in the 43rd. As McLeroth escorted Hall back to camp, Hall explained that they had had a liaison with a country woman from whom they had “often received pecuniary Favours.” They were intoxicated, and she convinced them to go to a house near Dorchester, but they both intended to return to camp by morning. They were on the way to the house when McLeroth came upon them.

Hall was given over to soldiers of the 64th Regiment who ferried him to Castle William and put him into custody. He was tried by court martial two days later. Witnesses from the 43rd and 64th recounted their experiences with Hall’s absence and capture, noting in particular that Hall offered no resistance

Serjeant Thomas Rookesby of the 43rd described in detail the process of determining the disposition of Hall’s necessaries. He first “went to the Prisoner's Tent to look for the Prisoner's Knapsack which he found with only one Old Shirt & some Spatterdashes in it.” This, of course, suggested that Hall had made off with his other shirt, shoes and stockings, and Hall was reported as a deserter. The next morning, however, Rookesby made a more detailed search and found “The Shoes in the Straw of the Tent one Shirt in his Comrade's knapsack & the other his Comrade had taken down to the Washerwoman” as well as two pair of old stockings in an unspecified location. Only two pair of stockings remained missing, far less of an implication against Hall.

Edward Hall’s defense was particularly lucid and he was earnest about his actions, admitting his unauthorized absence but making a convincing case that he had no intention of deserting. He called several witnesses who corroborated his assertions, and presented closing arguments in writing. In an effort to prove his character, he deposed “That his Family being in very independent Circumstances he first entered into the Service not from Want, but Inclination. That he has always met with Treatment that left him no Reason of Complaint, and that Lt Robertson by directions from his Father, has ever been ready, to give him every assistance suitable to one in his present Station which he must have forfeited by Desertion.” Here, then, is another example of the type of British soldier that is too often overlooked in the literature: educated, from a good family, in the army fully voluntarily rather than for want of any other opportunity.

Unfortunately for Hall, the court did not appreciate his sincere and well-delivered defense. He was found guilty and sentenced to “receive one thousand lashes by the Drummers of the line… at such time and place and in such proportions as the Commanding Officer of the 43rd Regiment shall see convenient and proper.” We have no evidence that the punishment was remitted. Whether it would have dissuaded any further transgressions from Hall is moot: he died in July 1775 of wounds received at the Battle of Bunker Hill.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

John Man, 64th Regiment

2011-12-13T07:14:00.000-08:00

In spite of stereotyped ideas that literacy was rare among common soldiers, primary sources frequently reveal evidence of educated common soldiers. Not enough examples exist to do statistics, but at least we can see that illiteracy was not pervasive. My new book, British Soldiers, American War, expected to be released by Westholme Publishing some time in 2012, will present many examples of well-educated private soldiers.

The proceedings of courts martial sometimes reveal eloquent and sophisticated defenses offered by common soldiers. These are not necessarily examples of well-educated men in the ranks; sometimes sympathetic officers assisted in the preparation of the defense. One such defense was offered by John Man of the 64th Regiment of Foot.

Man (or Mann) enlisted in the 64th on 9 February 1768, a year before the regiment sailed for Boston. Like all recruits, he was attested and the articles of war were read to him. He apparently fared well in his early years of service and soon became the trustworthy servant of Ensign William Snowe. While Snowe was in Great Britain on a leave of absence, however, Man deserted. He was absent from the regiment from 5 April until 10 August 1773 when he returned to the regiment on his own volition. For this indiscretion he was tried by a regimental court martial and sentenced to received 600 lashes, but the commanding officer of the regiment pardoned him.

In 1774 Snowe, now a Lieutenant, returned to the regiment in Boston. Whether he learned of Man’s transgression or whether Man simply feared that he would is not clear, but Man indicated that he felt he had dishonored both his master and his sovereign. Driven (as he said) by shame, he collected his pay on 26 July and obtained a pass to go into town. He never returned, and was reported as a deserter on 1 August. It is especially interesting that General Gage had issued a proclamation on 9 July, effective through 10 August, offering free pardon to any deserters who returned during that time; the proclamation, however, clearly stated that it would not apply to men who deserted after the pardon was proclaimed. Man, who was surely aware of the pardon, could not avail himself of it if he chose to return.

On 19 September 1774, about seven weeks after John Man’s desertion from Boston, a sober man calling himself John Simmel enlisted in the 47th Regiment of Foot in New York. The serjeant major of the 47th gave two New York shillings to the new recruit and sent him in the care of a serjeant to be attested before a magistrate. On the way to the magistrate’s offices, however, the recruit stopped the serjeant and said that he would not be attested because he was a deserter from the 64th Regiment. He was brought back to the serjeant major and confined. Soon after, the 47th was ordered to Boston. Transport ships were sent to New York to receive them and they embarked in mid-October, including among their baggage their prisoner, John Man.

When the 47th arrived in Boston, Man was confined, apparently for convenience, in the guard house of the 65th regiment. He wore clothing provided by the 47th. Man was put on trial in Boston on 1 November and charged with desertion, to which he pleaded not guilty. Testimony from two serjeants of the 64th acquainted the court with the circumstances of his enlistment, attestation, remuneration and previous desertion from the 64th, while the two serjeants of the 47th described his attempt to enlist and his subsequent confession. The court was particular to ask whether, at the time of Man’s confession, the 47th had received orders to embark for New York and whether transports had arrived for them. Both men testified that they had not received such orders nor had the transports arrived. This apparently told the court that Man did not give himself up because he knew that he would be discovered upon his arrival in Boston; he must have had a more honorable motive for turning himself in.

When Man was called to defend himself he presented an elegantly phrased defense:

Worthy Gentlemen,

I am exceedingly sorry to be the unhappy Cause of giving you any trouble, Particularly, as I must confess I was always used in the most lenient manner by every Officer, Non- Commissioned Officer and Soldier in the Regiment.

Each time of my Desertion I had such offers & Insinuations from these designing Bostonians and Country people that, deluded by their first making me drink to excess and then conveying me away in an obscure manner, lending & assisting all help and means to forward me from my Regt especially the last time of my Desertion, that I was tempted to do what I have since sincerely repented of as well in respect of my Ingratitude to Lt Snow as the wrong I have done my King. Mr Snow was always an indulgent master to me, & my having deserted the first time on his leave of Absence, from the Insinuations and treachery of wicked people (and to which cause alone, I hope the Honble Court will impune my first Desertion, as it appears from the Evidence on my tryal that I returned of my own accord) and Lt Snow not being with the Regt when I joined, a sense of Shame on hearing he was coming to the Regt for my ingratitude to so kind a Master, with the Allurements of those designing Men, tempted me again to leave my Colours, rather than encounter the displeasure of a Master I had used ill. I beg leave further to assure the Court that having on this last Desertion been carried so far from my Regt by the Treachery of those people, it was Poverty, Want & Hunger made me take for immediate support, the Money offered me to inlist in the 47th Regt and not a Design to cheat my King & Country & which I trust my Instantly giving myself up as a Deserter will in a great measure prove. These, Gentlemen, are the only excuses I have to offer for the great crime I have been guilty of and which I have the greatest detestation and endeavoured to show a thorough conviction of my Guilt when I first appeared before you by openly confessing it.

Shou'd these reasons and my sincere repentance of my crime intercede with the Honble Court to extend their mercy to their Humble Petitioner he will be ever bound to pray for them and will be always ready to sacrifice a Life, which he shall owe to them, against the Enemies of his King and Country.

After this dissertation, Man called two officers of the 64th as character witnesses. Lt. Michael Jacob deposed that, in the year between Man’s two desertions, they had been in the same company and that Man behaved well. Lt. Snowe offered that in the five years he had known Man he had never known him to misbehave (with the exception of the desertions). He added the significant fact that, at the time of his desertion, Man “had the Care” of all of Snowe’s possessions and did not abscond with any of them.

Man’s defense that he had been coerced to desert by Boston citizens was later used by other soldiers, but we don't know if it was truly a common occurrence or if it was instead a popular excuse. The officers on the court may have known of other soldiers who claimed to have been effectively kidnapped rather than deserted. Regardless, the court could not but find Man guilty since he had obviously deserted, no matter the circumstances. The fact that Man had willingly given himself up strongly influenced the court, however, as did the “Exceeding good Character given him by his Officers.” Man was sentenced to receive one thousand lashes in four equal proportions at separate times.

We have no information on to what extent the punishment was carried out. Man continued to serve in the regiment, well enough to be transferred into the light infantry in 1776. He soon became a prisoner of war, but was exchanged in August 1778. Unfortunately, there are no muster rolls for the 64th Regiment for the year 1779, and Man is no longer on the rolls in 1780. We do not know the fate of this interesting soldier.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

John Workman, 17th Regiment of Foot

2011-12-01T17:44:00.000-08:00

John Workman was a serjeant in the 17th Regiment of Foot when that corps arrived in Boston in 1775. The 36 year old Irishman, who had learned the trade of shoe making before joining the army, may have been expecting a short war. He certainly couldn't have expected the war that he experienced.

He served in the Boston garrison until the city was evacuated in March 1776, then on through the lightening campaign that secured New York City and New Jersey at the end of that year. The new year, however, brought a change in fortune for Workman and his regiment.

The 17th Regiment was at the center of the battle of Princeton on 3 January 1777. The regiment fought valiantly in that clash and suffered greatly. Serjeant Workman was one of over 50 men taken prisoner, a better fate than the 20 or so who were killed. We haven't determined whether he was sent to Connecticut or into Pennsylvania for captivity, but he had the good fortune to be exchanged within about a year. By early 1778 he was again with his regiment in Philadelphia.

Serjeant Workman made it through the famous battle of Monmouth as the British army worked its way back to New York. The summer of 1779 found the regiment posted up the North River (as the Hudson River was then called) at an outpost called Stony Point. This fortification was still a work in progress when it was assaulted on the night of 16-17 July by an American force under General Anthony Wayne. The attack was a complete surprise and Wayne's soldiers, relying only on their bayonets, swept through the British works. They took almost the entire garrison prisoner, including John Workman, who for the second time was marched off into captivity.

This time Workman took advantage of his pre-military skills and went to work at the Continental Shoe Factory, a facility in Philadelphia that was part of the nascent infrastructure of the American army. This contribution by British prisoners to the American war effort is little known and deserves more study. It was certainly a way for prisoners not only to occupy their time but also to provide for themselves and for their families, for many wives and children accompanied their soldier-husbands even into captivity. An October 1779 return lists 214 British, Loyalist and German prisoners of war being "At Work" in Philadelphia including 22 from the 17th Regiment.

John Workman, an experienced soldier, may have had a different motive. In late November he absconded from the shoe factory; he may have gone to work there in the first place as a way to effect his escape. He was advertised in a local newspaper:

Philadelphia, November 25.
Forty Dollars Reward.

Deserted last Monday, the 22d inst. from the Continental Shoe Factory in the Barracks of this city, a certain John Workman, a British prisoner, and Serjeant in the 17th regiment of foot, by trade a shoemaker, about forty five years of age, about five feet six or seven inches high, fair complexion, thin visage, light coloured hair, and pitted with the small-pox; had on when he went away, a brown surtout coat, white cloth waistcoat and breeches, and laced hat. Whoever will apprehend and secure the aforesaid deserter in any gaol on the Continent, or bring him to the subscriber, shall receive the above reward and all reasonable charges, paid by Alexander Rutherford.
N. B. It is supposed he inclines to go to sea; therefore all masters of vessels and others are desired not to harbour or carry him off at their peril.

[The Pennsylvania Packet, 2 December 1779]

He did not go to sea. Along with other escaped prisoners, he made his way through the countryside with the assistance of quietly loyal residents who had created a network to help British soldiers make their way into New York. They provided food, civilian clothing, directions and sometimes even served as guides from one safe haven to the next. This is another aspect of the war about which there is little literature. Roger Lamb wrote at length of his escape experience and the help he received along the way. That Workman also received assistance is known because one of the Loyalists petitioned the government for aid at the end of the war; Serjeant Workman is among the men mentioned on the claim, and was one signer of an affidavit stating that they had been "furnished... with Provisions and Necessarys provided guides for us and did every thing in his power to facilitate our Escape at a Verry Considerable Expence and Risque."

Workman made it back to New York, but he did not join his regiment. Although the Stony Point prisoners had been exchanged early in 1781, the regiment then sailed to join the British army in the south. It is not known whether Workman literally missed the boat, or if was left behind in New York to recover from his arduous experience. Due either to his illness or his absence his rank had been reduced to private soldier, a common practice to allow a fit and present man to take the serjeant's post; this sort of shuffling was necessary because each regiment had an established number of non-commissioned officers.

Because he stayed in New York, John Workman was spared from becoming a prisoner for a third time. He remained in New York through the end of the war, once again joining his comrades when they were repatriated at the close of hostilities. As the regiment was being reorganized at the end of the war, discharging men who were no longer fit for service or who had completed their wartime enlistment contract and entertaining new men who enlisted after being discharged from other corps, John Workman was appointed drummer. This seems like an unusual post for a man now 44 years old (his age was misstated in the newspaper advertisement), it was a fairly common path for former non-commissioned officers who'd been reduced to the ranks. Apparently it was a way to get these men into a position of higher pay and responsibility; we don't know if he ever actually played the drum.

John Workman was discharged from the 17th Regiment as a serjeant in 1791 at the age of 52. Like many dedicated and long-serving soldiers, he received a pension so that he did not need to return to his former profession of making shoes.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

William McCreally, 3rd Regiment of Foot

2011-11-13T16:43:00.000-08:00

Military service in the 18th century is often perceived as a occupation of last resort, to be abandoned at the first opportunity. The careers of British soldiers who served in America consistently tell us otherwise. One place where this is evident is in the choices made by soldiers at the end of the war.

Before the outbreak of hostilities in America, enlistment in the army was for a career that lasted as long as the man was fit for service; discharge was at the discretion of the army. To stimulate wartime recruiting, however, a warrant was proclaimed that men who enlisted after 16 December 1775 would be entitled to be discharged after three years of service or at the end of the war, whichever was longer.

Among those who enlisted under these terms was a young blacksmith from the parish of Desertmartin in County Derry, Ireland. Born in 1760, William McCreally joined the 3rd Regiment of Foot (nicknamed The Buffs because of the beige color of the regimental uniform's lapels, waistcoats and breeches) on 26 July 1778. At that time his regiment had been on service in Ireland for several years, and although many men from the regiment had been drafted at the beginning of the war and were already fighting in America, there was no immediate expectation of overseas deployment for The Buffs.

By the end of 1780, however, the regiment had received orders for America. The 3rd Foot arrived in Charleston, South Carolina in March 1781. Almost immediately the regiment was on the march to the relief of the British post at Ninety-Six. After this campaign, the 3rd returned to Charleston.

On 8 September 1781, British forces from Charleston engaged an American army at the battle of Eutaw Springs. William McCreally was wounded, receiving a musket ball in the leg. This injury was not enough to end his career, though. McCreally remained in the ranks of the 3rd Regiment when it left Charleston at the end of the war.

While much of the British army concentrated in New York in 1783, the 3rd Foot went south to Jamaica. There, encamped at a place called Up Park they received orders for a reduction in size to a new peace-time establishment. Men who had enlisted after 16 December 1775 were entitled to be discharged. Having served his obligation and been wounded in battle, McCreally was an obvious choice to leave the service and return to his native land rather than remaining in the hostile tropical climate.

Instead he re-enlisted, as did dozens of his comrades, and served with the 3rd in Jamaica for five more years. During that time, perhaps in September 1786, a hurricane struck the island and McCreally, in unknown circumstances, had both of his arms broken.

The after effects of this new injury, combined with the lingering effects of his wound, was enough to render him unfit for service. He was discharged in 1788 at the age of 28. He returned to Great Britain and went before the pension board at Chelsea Hospital; they granted him an out pension for his disabilities and years of service.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Samuel Lee, 18th Regiment of Foot (Royal Irish)

2011-10-14T19:02:00.000-07:00

Regular readers of this blog (whom I shall refrain from calling "regulars" lest they be confused with the soldiers who are the subject matter) should by now be familiar with two aspects of the lives of British soldiers during the 1770s and 1780s: they generally chose the army as a lifelong career and remained soldiers until no longer fit for service; and they were allowed to have part-time jobs, often within the army, in addition to their normal military duties. An excellent case it point is a private soldier in the 18th (Royal Irish) Regiment of Foot named Samuel Lee.

Thanks to the diligent research of Dr. Steven Baule, we know more about Samuel Lee than most British common soldiers. Born in London in 1745, Lee was already in the 18th Regiment when they arrived in America in 1767. We do not know when he enlisted, but the fact that he was in the Grenadier company in 1767 indicates that he probably had at least a year's service in the regiment by that time. He had also had time to learn the tailoring trade before joining the army, for he worked in that role for the regiment. With the 18th he traveled to Philadelphia, then spent a few years on the frontier in Illinois before marching back to Philadelphia, then to New Jersey and New York. By this time, early 1774, Lee was the Master Tailor of the regiment. This was not a rank, per se; Lee was still a private soldier. It was nonetheless a position of some responsibility and one that could earn him a significant amount of money over his base pay.

In Amboy, New Jersey, one of the regiment's tailors was tried by a general court martial for making false accusations about an officer in the regiment. During the trial several deponents spoke of a busy day in the regiment's tailors' room, the tailors and work and several officers appearing to check on the work and to get fitted for clothing. Words passed, and Samuel Lee among others was asked to testify about what he heard, but Lee was unable to recall specifics and indicated that some conversations may have occurred that he was not aware of. Another tailor clarified this, telling the court that Lee was "a little hard of hearing"; an officer asked if Lee was not in fact deaf. Lee had seen rigorous service over the last several years, but there is no indication of whether his hearing loss was related to his army career. If he stayed in the army and his hearing continued to decline, he could look forward to a pension at the end of his career.

Late in 1774 three companies of the 18th, including the grenadiers, boarded transports and sailed to Boston. There they were formed into a composite battalion along with five companies of the 65th Regiment. Lee continued his tailoring work - in December he purchased goods from a Boston merchant to make clothing for one of the regiment's officers.

As the British army prepared for distinct possibility of hostilities in the Spring of 1775, regiments were ordered on marches into the countryside for fitness. Although military writers of the era recommended that soldiers employed as servants, tailors and at other martial duties be nonetheless included in training and guard mounting, we might expect a man like Samuel Lee to be excused from marches and other duties. As Master Tailor, he was responsible for overseeing the cutting, fitting and maintenance of all of the regiment's clothing. The transition from winter to summer was usually a busy time for these men as the preparation of the regiment's annual issue of regimental clothing, received in America in the fall, was finalized for wear in the new campaign season; some regiments also took the opportunity to re-cut the previous year's clothing into campaign garb in order to preserve the new clothing, and to make specialized clothing for use in America. There were also tents to be gotten ready. It would be no surprise, then, for Samuel Lee to have stayed in Boston on the historic night of 18 April when his company was ordered out for a march towards Concord. But another remarkable piece of information has survived to tell us his actual whereabouts.

The expedition to Concord was conducted by two ad hoc battalions composed of the combined light infantry and grenadier companies from the regiments in Boston. The grenadier company of the 18th was among them. A Massachusetts militiaman named Sylvanus Wood recounted his actions that day after he had faced the British light infantry on Lexington Green:

The English soon were on their march for Concord. I helped carry six dead into the meetinghouse and then set out after the enemy and had not an armed man to go with me, but before I arrived at Concord, I see one of the grenadiers standing sentinel. I cocked my piece and run up to him, seized his gun with my left hand. He surrendered his armor, one gun and bayonet, a large cutlass and brass fender, one box over the shoulder with twenty-two rounds, one box round the waist with eighteen rounds. This was the first prisoner that was known to be taken that day.

The hapless British sentinel was none other than Samuel Lee. Perhaps his poor hearing made it easier for his captor to approach him; it is also entirely possible that Lee willingly surrendered, a surreptitious form of desertion. Although Lee was listed first as missing and then as a prisoner of war on British muster rolls, he does not seem to have been held as a captive and he made no effort to return to the British army. He set up shop as a tailor in Concord. In 1776 he married a woman named Mary Piper and with her had five children. He died in Concord in August 1790 at the age of 45.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Robert Vaughn, 52nd Regiment of Foot

2011-10-01T20:07:00.000-07:00

On 3 March 1775 a detachment of the 52nd Regiment of Foot in Boston was ordered to practice firing with live ammunition. Firing at marks, as the practice was called, was a common exercise in the months approaching a campaign season even in peace time; along with day-long marches carrying knapsacks, these activities helped insure the fitness of the soldier for whatever the service might require. In Boston, rafts with targets were placed in the water off of Boston Common (which at that time was on the shoreline; extensive filling has dramatically changed Boston's topography). The soldiers formed and each man took his turn firing at the targets.

Robert Vaughn was among the soldiers of the 52nd Regiment ordered to fire that day. He was a 9-year veteran of the 52nd, but needed to practice his marksmanship just like everyone else. When roll was called for the detachment formed for the firing exercise at 2 in the afternoon, however, Vaughn was missing. A sergeant of his company “went to examine his Necessary’s", that is, to see if Vaughn's shoes, shirts and stockings were properly packed into his knapsack in the barracks. When a soldier was missing, it was a standard practice to determine whether he had taken belongings with him; if he did, desertion was immediately suspected. The serjeant found that Vaughn's necessaries "were all gone except a few old Things.”

At about 6:30 that night, two sentries from the 23rd Regiment posted at a way leading to a ferry were approached by the fully-uniformed Vaughn. Vaughn called out to some boatman and inquired for someone. The sentries told him he ought to go home; Vaughn claimed to have a pass to be out until ten o'clock, and had no cause to go until then. He claimed to be looking for a ferryman who was an acquaintance, and finally attempted to pass the sentries and go to the ferry. The sentries stopped him and after some more discourse Vaughn, apparently very drunk, “placed himself against a Post, and soon dropt down as if Dead, and did not say any thing more.” The sentries called for assistance and other soldiers took Vaughn to the officer of the guard.

There is a popular misconception that British uniforms did not have pockets. That they did in fact have them is proven by cases like Vaughn's; when a deviant soldier was taken to the guard is was standard procedure to search his pockets for stolen goods or for extra clothing that signified an intention to desert. When the officer of the guard searched Vaughn's coat pockets “two pair of Stockings was found, and on opening his Waistcoat to give him Air, a clean Shirt was found tied round his Waist.” The officer then searched the pockets of Vaughn’s breeches but found nothing in them.

Vaughn was tried the next day by a general court martial. Among the questions asked by the court was whether Vaughn’s necessaries had been examined recently before he was taken, to which the sergeant replied that they had; it was therefore clear that things were missing. Vaughn, in his defense, offered that he was “so much in Liquor, that he has not the least rememberance of what he was about, that he had not any intention to desert.” Hoping to win the favor of the court, he also pointed out that he had “been a long time in the Service, and at several Sieges.”

To support his claims Vaughn called on an officer from another regiment as a character witness; presumably Vaughn has served with this officer, Lieutenant Thomas Hewetson of the 59th Regiment, at some time earlier in his career. It was a poor of witnesses; Hewestson testified only that “the great length of time which has elapsed, since the Prisoner says he serv’d in the same Corps with him, has entirely remov’d any recollection at all of the Prisoner.”

The court found Vaughn guilty of desertion and sentenced him to the maximum penalty, death. Even though Vaughn was absent only for a matter of hours and was drunk when apprehended, the court no doubt looked on the methodical way in which he concealed his spare clothing, along with his attempt to get to a ferry, as proof that he was trying to leave the British garrison. Vaughn’s sentence was quickly approved, and General Thomas Gage, commanding the army in Boston, ordered on 8 March that it be “put in execution to morrow morning at seven o'Clock, by shooting the Prisoner Robert Vaughan to death by a platoon of the Regiment to which he belongs. The place of execution to be near the water below the Guard on the common.”

That night at around 9, however, in one of the many acts of clemency shown after capital sentences, the announcement was made that “The Execution of Robert Vaughan, private soldier in the 52nd Regiment, is respited till further orders.” Vaughn was fully pardoned a few days later. The death sentence was supposed to deter desertion, and remitting it was expected to endear the soldiery to their commander. The ineffectiveness of this gestured was immediately apparent, for on 14 March, less than a week after staying Vaughn’s execution, Gage notified the army that:

The Commander in chief flattered himself that the instance of mercy shewn Robert Vaughan of the 52nd Regiment would be the most eligible means to bring the soldiers to a sence of their duty to their King and Country, and to reflect more seriously on the sin they Committed in deserting the service of both; He is greatly mortified to find that clemency is so little regarded, and assures the Regiments that this is the last man he will pardon who shall be condemned for desertion.

Being sentenced to death and then pardoned certainly seems to have had an effect on the veteran soldier Robert Vaughn, but not the desired effect. On 21 April, just over a month after his pardon and days after the outbreak of hostilities, he deserted again, this time never to be apprehended.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Upcoming lectures

2011-09-25T19:37:00.001-07:00

For anyone interested in hearing me talk about various British army stuff, I have three lectures coming up in the next few weeks:

Sober, Industrious Women: Wives of British Soldiers
Thursday, 29 September at 7 p.m.
Fort Montgomery State Historic Site, New York
http://i1.exhibit-e.com/palisades/bcffc989.pdf

The Men of the Boston Garrison, 1775-1776
Tuesday, 4 October at 7:30 p.m
Bemis Hall, 15 Bedford Rd., Lincoln, MA

A British Light Infantry Company at Pell's Point
Saturday, 15 October at Noon
St. Paul's Church National Historic site, New York
http://www.nps.gov/sapa/index.htm

Robert Nun, 43rd Regiment of Foot

2011-09-12T19:16:00.000-07:00

Many of the vignettes presented here are drawn from the proceedings of British military courts. These documents, rich in details on the minor events that did not change history but which were the substance of the lives of those who lived it, survive in manuscript form at the National Archives of Great Britain, and are available on microfilm at the David Library of the American Revolution. Today, instead of distilling one of these cases into a story, we'll present the complete text of a trial. Some details of the handwritten manuscript do not lend themselves to the formatting conventions available on this forum, but we'll present the complete text including the original spelling and abbreviations.

The accused soldier was Robert Nun (or Nunn) of the 43rd Regiment of Foot. He was recruited after the war began, and joined his regiment in Rhode Island in 1777. Two years later, for strategic reasons, the British chose to evacuate their garrison in Rhode Island and return the troops there to New York. The 22nd, 38th and 43rd Regiments were the only British regulars remaining by October 1779, along with several regiments of Germans and Loyalists.

When British regiments stayed in one play for an extended period, then moved elsewhere, an interesting phenomenon usually occurred: the rate of desertion increased. We can ascribe this to two possible reasons. Some soldiers probably developed local attachments that they did not wish to leave, while others who were discontent with military service saw the regiment's movement as an opportunity to desert with less likelihood of being caught. Robert Nun literally made a break for it on the very day that the 43rd was preparing to embark, the last day of the British occupation. The proceedings of his trial reveal many interesting details of military culture, but leave ample room for discussion of Nun's actual thoughts and motivation:

At a General Court Martial, held at New York on Wednesday the 26th Jany & continued by Adjournment to Saturday 11th March 1780 by Virtue of a Warrant bearing date the 25th Jany from His Excellency Sir Henry Clinton, Knight of the most Honorable Order of the Bath, General and Commander in Chief of all His Majesty’s Forces within the Colonies laying on the Atlantic Ocean, from Nova Scotia to West Florida inclusive &c. &c. &c.

Major John Small of His Majesty’s 84th Regt. of Foot, President

Members: Major James Cousseau 37th Reg; Major David Furguson 43d Regt.; Capt. Thos. Brady R. Artillery; Capt. William Farquhar 20th Regt; Capt. Stephen Cook 37th Regt.; Capt. Alexr McDonald 76th Regt.; Capt. David Anstruther 42d Regt.; Capt. Willm Richardson 43d Regt.; Lt. John Robertson 42d Regt.; Lt. Norman McLeod 42d Regt.; 1st Lt. Francis Laye R. Artillery; 2d Lt. Charles Frazer 23d Regt.

Ensn. Mathew Wood of His Majesty’s 64th Regt. Foot Deputy Judge Advocate

The President Members and Judge Advocate being duly Sworn.

Robert Nunn, private soldier in His Majesty’s 43rd Regiment of Foot, was brought prisoner before the Court and accused of Desertion, & the following Witnesses were examined in support of the Accusation Vizt.

Serjt. William McCoy of His Majesty’s 43d Regt. Foot being duly sworn, deposed that he knew the Prisoner to have received Pay & Cloathing as a Soldier in the said Regiment, that on the 25th of October last when the regiment was going to Embark at Rhode Island, the Roll was called by a Corporal, who found that the Prisoner was absent, upon which he (the Corporal) reported him to the witness, that he (the Witness) was ordered to go & search for him, & that about three quarters of a Mile from the Encmapment he saw the Prisoner go up from behind some Bushes in his shirt sleeves, & run away, upon which he (the witness) pressed an Inhabitant to go with him; that they pursued him and secured him.
Q. (by the Court) Was the prisoner in Liquor?
A. He did not seem to him to be in liquor.
Q. Did the Prisoner carry off his Arms or Accoutrements?
A. He carried off his Accoutrements.

Serjeant Luke Touridge of the 43d Regiment of Foot, being duly sworn deposed that he knew the Prisoner to have received pay & Cloathing, as a Soldier in the 43rd Regiment & that on the 25th Octr. Last the Serjeant Major went to him (the Witness) and desired him to take a file of Men and go in search of the Prisoner; that he accordingly went, & as he was jumping over a Stone Wall he saw a Coat Waistcoat, & a Hat laying under the Wall; the hat he knew to be the prisoners; that he went up to Serjt. McCoy (who had been likewise ordered to go in search of the Prisoner) and desired him to proceed further into the brushy Wood; that they separated in the Wood & scour’d it and some little time afterwards he (the Witness) heard a Shouting, upon which he ran out of the Wood & saw the Prisoner running away in his shirt sleeves, and Serjt. McCoy with his party running after the Prisoner; the Witness further says that he did not see the Prisoner after that time till he was brought back Prisoner.
Q. (by the Court) Did he carry off his Arms or Accoutrements?
A. He carried off his Accoutrements.

Christopher Willow, private soldier in the 43d Regiment Foot being duly sworn, deposed that he was one of the party that was ordered to go with Serjt. McCoy in search of the Prisoner on the 25th Octr. Last; that about three quarters of a Mile from the Encampment he saw the prisoner in a field without his hat, Coat or Waistcoat on, that upon the Prisoners seeing the Party, he ran away; upon which they pursued him, & the Serjt. pressed an Inhabitant to go with them, that they soon came up with him, & secured him; that upon his (the Witness) coming up to the Prisoner he had a Stone in one hand, and a Knife in the other, but that he immediately threw down the Stone and put the Knife in his Pocket, & gave himself up, without making any resistance.
Q. (by the Court) Did the prisoner carry off any of his Arms or Accoutrements?
A. He carried off his pouch & Waistbelt.
Q. What sort of a Knife was it the prisoner had in his hand?
A. A common Clasp Knife.
Q. Did the Inhabitant come up with the Prisoner first?
A. Yes.
Q. What distance was he (the Witness) from the Prisoner, when he first saw the Inhabitant with him?
A. About an hundred Yards.
Q. Could he (the Witness) see the Prisoner when the Inhabitant first got up to him?
A. No, there was an Orchard between.

The Prisoner being put upon his Defence says that about a Week before the regiment Embarked at Rhode Island, Serjeant McCoy had struck him & used him very ill, upon which he went to Camp to complain to his Captain, who told him that he would see him righted, and that he had no occasion to go to the Commanding Officer; that he was in liquor at the time that he went off & did not know what he was doing and begs the Mercy of the Court.

The Court having considered the Evidence for & against the Prisoner Robert Nunn, together with what he had to offer in his Defence, is of Opinion that he is Guilty of the Crime laid to his Charge in a breach of the first Article of the Sixth Section of the Articles of War, & doth therefore sentence him to receive One thousand Lashes on his bare back with Cats of nine Tails.

John Small, Majr Comdg 2d Battn 84th Regt of Highlanders, President.
Mattw. Woodd Deputy Judge Advocate

Approved, Wm. Tryon M. G.
Confirmed HClinton

We lack certain information on whether or not Nun received the full punishment that he was sentenced. If he wasn't discontent with the army before, the harrowing experience of awaiting punishment probably influenced him even if, like many soldiers under sentence of corporal and capital punishment, he was subsequently pardoned.

Whether Nun had planned his desertion attempt or was in fact out of his senses, he seems to have learned something from the experience. In May 1781 the 43rd Regiment again embarked on transports, this time to voyage from New York to Virginia to join Cornwallis's army. But, on the day of embarkation, Robert Nun deserted once again; we've found no record of him being caught this time.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Daniel McCarty, 22nd Regiment of Foot

2011-08-27T19:16:00.000-07:00

I have done a poor job of responding to comments on this blog. Please don't let that stop you from commenting, though - your feedback is welcome and interesting. One reader asked for more information about the Rhode Island hospital garden mentioned in the installment about James McGregor of the 22nd Regiment. There are some details on the garden and the produce it yielded in my book General Orders: Rhode Island which gives a detailed picture of military activities during one year of a British garrison. An in-depth look at the variety of considerations given to the health of British soldiers can be found in period textbooks on the subject.

Another interesting detail about the Rhode Island garrison also comes from the general orders. Soon after the garrison was established, a newspaper began publication under the name of The Newport Gazette. This paper was the work of John Howe, who had published the ~~Boston Gazette~~ Massachusetts Gazette until Boston was evacuated in March 1776. Well before the inaugural issue of that paper in the early months of 1777, in fact only a week after the British landed on the island, the army sought a capable man from within the ranks, presumably to operate presses left behind by the Newport printer who had chosen to flee the British occupation:

14 Decr. 1776
If there are Soldiers in any British Regiment who understand the Printing Business, they are to be sent to Lieut. Col. Campbell in Newport.

Probably the soldier would print notices to be posted around the town, but I wonder if the soldier-printer helped John Howe with the newspaper. I thought I had found the soldier in Daniel McCarty of the 22nd Regiment. This young Irishman, born in Cork in 1757, enlisted in the 22nd Regiment in late 1775 or early 1776. At the end of the occupation of Rhode Island, he was transferred briefly into the regiment's grenadier company, and then into the light infantry - a rare but not unprecedented move. He was in the light infantry during the 1780 siege of Charleston, South Carolina, but for some reason as yet unknown he was not with the company when it was made prisoners of war at Yorktown the following year. At the end of the war he received a discharge but reinlisted; after returning to Great Britain, however, he was once again discharged.

McCarty received a pension in 1784 due to a bad leg (perhaps this was the reason he was not on the Yorktown campaign); he also received 1 pound 12 pence in prize money as his share of the goods seized at Charleston. Rather than subsist strictly on his pension, however, he enlisted again in the 77th Regiment of Foot, taking his final discharge and rejoining the pension rolls in 1788.

When I first found McCarty's name on a list of pensioners, his occupation caught my eye: he was a printer - or was he a painter? The faint image on the microfilm made it difficult to read the cursive writing, and the writing style left only a slight difference between the two possible words. I hoped he was a printer, and that he assisted John Howe in creating the newspapers that have provided me much rich detail on the activities and culture of the Rhode Island garrison.

The original manuscript of the pension list would probably be clear enough to discern McCarty's trade with certainty. As it happened, though, I did not need to look at it. Another collection of documents also includes McCarty's name and trade, and on this one the writing is clear. He was a painter. Also, a close examination of his career shows that he did not arrive in Rhode Island until the middle of 1777. His trade may have occasionally been useful for the army, but he certainly was not the man who started the presses for the British garrison in Rhode Island.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

John Wallace, 76th Regiment of Foot

2011-08-12T15:40:00.000-07:00

When it became clear that the war in America would not end quickly, the British government authorized several new regiments to be raised. Among the newly established regiments was the 76th Regiment of Foot, which recruited primarily from Scotland. During the rapid recruiting of this corps in late 1777 and early 1778, a 26 year old baker from the town of Kelso nestled in the southeast of Scotland at the confluence of the Teviot and Tweed rivers. Although from a lowland region, he had apparently resettled farther north in the highland county of Sutherland where he had a little property, a house and a garden. He was literate at least to the extent that he was able to write his own name. Why a man in such a situation would join the army is not known; he may have been enthusiastic about serving Great Britain, influenced by a local officer who knew him and encouraged him, or simply compelled to go along with others in his area.

By the summer of 1781, the 76th was on service in America, part of the army under General Cornwallis operating in Virginia along the banks of the James River. On 6 July they began the complex operation of moving the army across the river. Wallace was part of a detachment of about 20 men from the 76th and 80th Regiments posted in the rear of the army, charged with protecting the army during the delicate river crossing.

In the afternoon the picket was attacked by a substantial force from an American army commanded by the Marquis de Lafayette. The British hoped to convince the Americans that most of Cornwallis's army had already crossed the river and that the rear guard was vulnerable. This meant that the little piquet guard of Scottish soldiers was not reinforced. They fought desperately for about two hours, expending 50 rounds. The subaltern officer commanding the detachment was wounded; an officer who replaced him was wounded, and then a third. When they finally withdrew, John Wallace was one of only a few who escaped unscathed. The engagement escalated into the battle of Green Spring; the Americans were driven from the field, and Cornwallis's army moved on to establish a fateful encampment at Yorktown.

Soon after the army arrived at Yorktown in August 1781, violent thunderstorms roiled through the area. A few soldiers were killed. James Wallace, after surviving the gallant stand at Green Spring, was wounded by nature's wrath. A lightning strike caused him to lose an eye. So it was that he returned from America as a wounded soldier, albeit not wounded in battle.

When he arrived at this home in the Highlands of Sutherland, he learned that friends had, in his absence, "disposed of his little property, a house & garden." He went to a town to work at his trade as a baker, but his other eye soon began to dim, perhaps from the strain caused by the loss of the first. Unable to see well enough to earn a living at the age of only 33, he turned to the government for relief. He applied for an out pension, and was able to support his case with an affidavit signed by a general officer who was familiar with his brave service at Green Spring. His application was granted, providing this young old soldier a modest income for the rest of his life.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Benjamin Reynard, 37th Regiment of Foot

2011-08-03T17:07:00.000-07:00

Although army muster rolls in general provide and overview of each soldier's career, allowing each man to be traced (in six-month intervals) from the time that he joined his regiment to the time he left it. Occasionally, however, a soldier enigmatically appears on the rolls without any indication of where he came from, and sometimes men disappear from the rolls with no explanation of where they went. Benjamin Reynard, a grenadier in the 37th Regiment of Foot provides an example of both of these nuances.

Reynard served in America, but it is not clear when he joined the army or arrived on the west side of the Atlantic Ocean. He first appears on the rolls of the grenadier company on the roll that covers the period 25 December 1777 through 24 June 1778. Most men who joined grenadier or light infantry companies had served for at least a year in other companies of the regiment (there were occasional exceptions, particularly for men who had prior military experience). There is no annotation on this roll that he joined the company during that muster period, and no trace of him on the rolls of other companies during preceding periods. Admittedly, more detailed analysis might resolve this mystery; sometimes there are significant changes in the ways that names are spelled from one roll to another, and sometimes even the man's first name changes (for example, there's a chance that Benjamin Reynard is the 'Thomas Raynor' who appears on the prior roll of the same company), but determining this requires careful tracing of all of the names on the rolls, a long and tedious process.

Reynard continues on the rolls of the grenadier company of the 37th Regiment through August of 1783. At that time, the regiment was reorganized due to force reductions at the end of the war; the strength was reduced from ten companies to eight, and many men were discharged. Reynard appears on a set of rolls covering the period 24 June through 24 August (an unusual muster period), but is absent from the subsequent roll covering 25 August through 24 December. Again, it is possible that his name is not obvious because of spelling permutations, but the spelling is very consistent on all of the interim rolls.

Although we lack career details on Reynard that we have for most soldiers, there survives a record of a personal vignette during Reynard's American service, which is more than we have for most soldiers. At the beginning of June 1779 the grenadier battalion that included his company was part of an expedition that fortified posts on the Hudson river north of New York city including Stony Point on the west shore and Verplanck's Point on the east shore. They camped in wigwams made of brush, a typical practice for the British army in America. On 4 June they fired a salute in honor of the King's birthday.

At about 10 AM on 5 June, Reynard asked his serjeant for leave to go outside of the camp to gather greens, which was granted. He took a haversack with him, and after about an hour returned to camp with the haversack full of dock greens and other wild greens. At noon he fell in for a formation.

Later that day or the next day, a local inhabitant named Mary Baker claimed that some soldiers had come to her house about two miles from the camp at around 11 in the morning of 5 June. She had an inventory of things that they had plundered which included "shirts, and a quantity of wearing Apparel." She identified Reynard as one of the perpetrators, and claimed that he had also killed a pig of hers and made off with it.

Reynard was put on trial for this crime on 7 June. Mary Baker was the only witness supporting the charge. Reynard claimed that he was away from the camp with leave but had not gone far and had only gathered greens. His serjeant and another grenadier both testified in his support, corroborating his story. Both testified that they were in the same mess as Reynard, that is, they prepared their food and dined together; this explained their explicit interest in having seen the greens that Reynard gathered, and both said that Reynard had nothing else with him when he returned to camp. (Typically a mess consisted of 5 men; military authors of the era recommended that serjeants and soldiers mess separately, so the testimony in this trial indicates either that this company of the 37th did not heed these recommendations or that the size and composition of messes varied while the army was on campaign).

In a striking verdict, which is perhaps yet another mystery about Reynard, the military court found him guilty of the crime. Apparently they gave greater significance to the testimony of the injured party than to Reynard and his two comrades. There is no mention in the trial proceedings of how Mary Barker singled out Reynard, but there are other accounts of soldiers being paraded so that wronged inhabitants could recognize an offender in the ranks. It is possible that the officers who sat on the court were privy to information that was not explicitly presented at the trial. It also may be that the court wanted to set an example to stave off plundering by other soldiers.

Benjamin Reynard was sentenced to received 1000 lashes. We have no information on the extent to which this punishment was inflicted. Sometimes soldiers who were severely punished, particularly on dubious evidence, deserted, but not this one. As described above, Reynard continued to served through the end of the war.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Samuel and William Tuffie, 44th Regiment of Foot

2011-07-18T19:06:00.000-07:00

British soldiers were, for the most part, volunteers; there was no compulsory service, and pressing men was legalized for only a brief period during the war and was not particularly successful. There was, nonetheless, a particular group of men who were explicitly termed 'volunteers' in the army. These were young men who had reasonable expectations of becoming officers, and served without commissions while waiting for a commission to become vacant. A vacancy did not insure commission; the commander of the regiment and ultimately the King himself had to approve commissions, and this required a measure of influence. It was also often necessary to purchase the commission. The purchase system is often criticized as a poor system for choosing officers, but this criticism is overblown and often out of context. The cost of the commission was a surety against poor performance. When he retired from the service, an officer could recoup his investment in commissions and have a tidy sum for his retirement, while an officer who failed to do his duty could be punished by being cashiered, that is, being discharged from service and forfeiting his commission. Men who had the money still had to obtain approval for purchase, which provided a safeguard against money being the sole qualification. Young men seeking to enter the army seldom had their own funds but instead had to get the sponsorship of a wealthy individual whose investment they were obliged to protect by serving well. Although there are instances of unqualified men becoming officers by purchase, for the most part the system worked well.

It meant that not all volunteers obtained commissions quickly, and some never did. A confusing aspect of the service of volunteers is that they sometimes, but not always, appear on the muster rolls among the ranks of private soldiers. There is no way to distinguish them unless other information is available. This makes it challenging to discern whether the occasional private soldier who rose through the ranks and obtained a commission was an outstanding commoner who had impressed his superiors or a young gentleman who had volunteered and eventually obtained a rank to which he'd always had legitimate aspirations.

A case in point is Samuel Tuffie. His father, John Tuffie, had been a serjeant in the regiment before being appointed Quarter Master in 1776 at the age of 32. This was a fairly common career path, and often represented the highest rank that such a man achieved; John Tuffie was still quarter master of the 44th Regiment in 1794.

As a career soldier, John Tuffie had a family with him in the regiment including two sons, Samuel and William. Samuel appears among the private soldiers in the regiment on the first muster rolls that we have on hand from January 1775. At this time he was only about 11 years old; he certainly was not doing duty as a soldier, but there is nothing on the rolls to distinguish him as a volunteer. He was appointed drummer in February 1776, a roll more consistent with his age (although many drummers were adult men who served long careers in that capacity). Only because he wrote a memorial in 1782 seeking a commission, supported by a memorial from the commanding officer of the 44th, do we know that he was born in the army and son of John Tuffie.

Samuel Tuffie did not get the ensigncy in the 44th Regiment that the commanding officer had petitioned for because his father was "a very deserving man, has been a number of years in the Service with a Character unblemish’d & esteem’d by all the Officers of the Regt." Instead, he received a similar rank in a Loyalist regiment, Butler's Rangers. This regiment was disbanded the following year when the war ended, but Samuel's commission earned him a place on the half-pay list, a sort of reserve status that offered greater hopes of re-entering the army when an opportunity arose. That opportunity came in 1787 when he finally became an Ensign in the 44th Regiment.

William Tuffie was four years younger than Samuel, having been born in 1768. He too appears on the muster rolls of the 44th; he 'enlisted' in May 1775, and like his brother was appointed Drummer in February 1776. He was, however, discharged in April 1778 and does not appear again on the muster rolls during the war years. He nonetheless received an ensign's commission in the 44th 1791.

By 1796 the 44th Regiment was serving in the lethal climate of the West Indies. William Tuffie, by this time a Captain, was wounded in battle on St. Lucia in April. His older brother Samuel, having advanced only to Lieutenant, died of illness that same year.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Thomas Edwards, 22nd Regiment of Foot

2011-06-30T20:06:00.000-07:00

A little-known detail of British army operations during the era of the American Revolution is that musket ammunition did not always consist solely of single round lead balls. Although certainly the projectile of choice on the battlefield, there were situations when other types of ammunition were more practical. Unfortunately only enough information has come to light to inform us that other types existed, but not to tell us categorically when they were used.

When the 32nd Regiment of Foot was stationed in Waterford, Ireland, orders were given for "six rounds of Buck shot Cartridges" per man to be available, "which are only to be distributed when a party is called out." Although not explicitly stated, the orders imply that the parties might be called out to quell domestic disturbances. For small groups of soldiers on this type of duty, shot was a better option that ball, since it would be more likely to inflict multiple wounds when fired into a crowd but perhaps less likely to produce fatal wounds.

The 32nd Regiment did not serve in America during the 1775-1783 war, but a case concerning a soldier in the 22nd Regiment in America provides another example of non-ball ammunition. When the British army occupied Newport, Rhode Island and the surrounding countryside in December 1776 orders were given immediately to protect local farms from plunder - plunder that could come from wayward soldiers of the garrison or from American raiding parties that visited the island almost nightly. To provide this protection, individual soldiers called Safe Guards were posted at each place of interest.

One of the Safe Guards was Thomas Edwards of the 22nd Regiment of Foot. Edwards was an experienced soldier; he had joined the 65th Regiment of Foot some time before 1769 (gaps in the muster rolls leave his enlistment date unknown) and was drafted into the 22nd Regiment in 1776. His long service made him a good choice for a post of responsibility, but he found the job a challenging one. Although there were two officers and several soldiers quartered at the farm that he was ordered to protect, it was the target of marauders during the nights of December 1776. Edwards managed to catch several German soldiers in the act of robbery on several nights, but nonetheless sheep, hay and other stock were spirited away throughout the month.

The specific orders given to the Safe Guards have not been found, but apparently they were only expected to challenge intruders and ward them off without resorting to use of firearms. On the night of 31 December, Edwards attempted to stop four German soldiers from robbing stock from the farm - which had been robbed the night before - but the Germans dragged him around a field before disappearing into the night. A dazed and confused Edwards staggered into the house, bedraggled and open-shirted, and asked why no one had come to his aid. The next day he protested to Captain Brabazon of the 22nd Regiment, one of the officers living in the house, that he no longer wished to be a safe guard if he had no way of stopping intruders. Brabazon took the matter to the commander of the regiment, who authorized Safe Guards to fire on marauders if necessary. The other officer quartered at the house, young Ensign Richard Proctor of the 22nd Regiment, went to the German barracks to inform the officers that Safe Guards were now authorized to fire on intruders.

On the next night, about an hour after the evening gun had fired, a party of perhaps ten German soldiers broke down a fence to enter the farm grounds. Edwards challenged them, but they did not respond. Edwards fired one shot at the group of interlopers; because his musket was loaded with "Balls cut into square pieces", this one shot wounded two of the Germans, one in five places and the other in seven. The man with seven wounds died within a few days.

Edwards was brought before a general court martial on charges of "Maliciously Firing a Musket" and causing the death of the German soldier. The full proceedings of the trial have been published, and it is from them that we have the above details of the affair including the way that Edwards' musket was loaded. There are many other accounts of individual British sentries firing on individual men - plunderers, deserters and others - and killing or wounding them. Perhaps it was common for guards and sentries to use shot-like loads rather than single musket balls, making their individual shots more effective.

Thomas Edwards was acquitted. He continued to serve in the 22nd Regiment until 29 August 1778 when he was killed in the Battle of Rhode Island. Ensign Richard Proctor was also mortally wounded in that fight.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Richard Hutchinson, 64th Regiment of Foot

2011-06-04T17:52:00.000-07:00

Some men deserted more than once, but occasionally such men returned to the army on their own rather than face what they apparently perceived as a worse option. A case in point is Richard Hutchinson of the 64th Regiment of Foot.

The 64th Regiment came to America in 1769, landing first in Boston but then spending a few years in Halifax before returning to Boston in 1772. Hutchinson joined the regiment in America as a recruit in 1777, and although he was “a good Soldier & was very clean,” he seems to have had other ambitions than remaining a career soldier.

As the 64th was preparing to sail south in late 1779 under General Sir Henry Clinton to besiege Charleston, South Carolina, Richard Hutchinson deserted. It was not unusual for men to desert shortly before their regiments were preparing to remove to a new location; apparently it was seen as an opportune way to avoid recapture. Staying in New York, however, was not a safe option because the 64th, like most regiments on campaign, left a small contingent behind to mind regimental goods left in storage; usually a few sick men remained behind as well. Hutchinson signed on to the British privateer General Pattison and went to sea, either due to a genuine inclination towards seafaring, aspirations of wealth from prize money, or simply as a way to escape from the garrison city.

Several months later the General Pattison returned to the New York area from a cruise. While the ship was still outside New York harbor the officer of a British guard ship came on board and took Hutchinson in order to press him into service on the guard ship. Apparently unwilling to do this duty, Hutchinson admitted to being a deserter which resulted in his being sent to the main guard in New York. He remained in confinement until the commandant ordered him released to his regiment for reasons that are not recorded.

The 64th was still far away in the south, but Hutchinson joined the contingent caring for the regiment's storehouse at a place called Coenties Market in what is now Lower Manhattan; today there is a historic walkway in the area called Coenties Slip. Hutchinson did not remain long. About three weeks after joining the detachment he deserted again. This time the regiment advertised for him:

Deserted from the 64th Regimental Store at Coenties Market; Richard Hutchinson, private Soldier in the 64th regiment, born in Ireland, about 5 feet 7 inches high, short curly hair, much freckled in the face; had when he went off, a crimson coloured jacket, a pair of new duck trowsers, (was lately on board the General Pattison privateer.) Whoever will give information of the said Hutchinson, to Serjeant M’Donald at the said store, so that he may be apprehended, shall receive One Guinea Reward. All Masters of ships are hereby warned not to harbour the above-mentioned Hutchinson, at their peril. M. Wood, Ensign 64th Regt.

[Royal Gazette (New York), 1 July 1780]

In addition to the non-regimental clothing described in the advertisement, Hutchinson took his necessaries (that is, his shirts, stockings and shoes) with him, a sure sign that he had absconded intentionally rather than just wandering off.

It was not long before Hutchinson was discovered. He had managed to go to sea again, but was soon brought back to New York by another privateer, the General Rodney. It is not clear whether the General Rodney was a privateer in the British service or was a captured American privateer. Regardless, Hutchinson, now wounded, was put on board the infamous Jersey prison ship in New York harbor. Here he once again declared himself a deserter. Serjeant John McDonald and private John Williams of the 64th went to the Jersey to collect him and put him into confinement once again.

At his general court martial in September 1780, Hutchinson offered no testimony except to beg for the mercy of the court. It is unfortunate that he did not relate the details of his activities at sea. The two soldiers of the 64th who brought him off the Jersey provided the testimony upon which the above narrative is based. Surprisingly, the court did in fact show mercy to this repeat deserter. Rather than sentencing him to death, he was ordered to receive 700 lashes (somewhat lighter than the usual sentence of 1000 lashes for desertion, and that more typical for ‘accidental’ desertion rather than deliberate moves like Hutchinson’s) and then to be drummed out of the service, a particularly rare sentence. Gaps in the 64th Regiment's muster rolls leave us with no specifics about when or how Hutchinson left the regiment; he was listed as 'sick in New York in the second half of 1781, but is not on the next available roll covering the beginning of 1783.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Walter Burges, Luke Melly and John Williams, 63rd Regiment

2011-05-23T13:01:00.000-07:00

One of the greatest sources of personal information about soldiers is deserter advertisements. Because few other descriptive documents survive, the advertisements published in newspapers are often the only remaining accounts of what individuals actually looked like and sometimes personal nuances that they had. The purpose of the ads was to provide a sufficient textual image to allow readers to recognize the deserter and apprehend or report him. Similar advertisements were published for escaped prisoners, thieves, runaway servants and slaves, and other people who had absconded from some sort of contract, bondage or captivity.

There is no way to judge how effective these ads were except for the fact that they were a staple of newspapers throughout the 18th century and well into the 19th. Sometimes other sources can be used to determine the individual's whereabouts; in the case of soldiers, muster rolls allow us to trace a man's career in the army, and for the few who deserted and advertised the combined sources of information yield an interesting personal story.

A 1773 advertisement from an Irish newspaper describes five men who deserted from a regiment that would arrive in America two years later:

Deserted 29th May, from the 63d Regiment of Foot, and Capt. Westropp’s Company, at Belfast, William Condie, born at Path of Condie, near Perth, in Perthshire, Scotland, aged 20 Years, Size 5 Feet 8 Inches and a half, dark brown Eyes, brown Hair, brown complexion, straight and well made, by Calling a Labourer.

Also from Capt. Follett’s Light Infantry Company (at Ballynahinch) of said Regiment, the following Men, viz. Drummer John Williams, born in St. Nicholas’s Parish in Rochester, in the County of Kent, aged 22 Years, Size 5 Feet 2 Inches and a half, black Eyes, dark brown Hair, fresh Complexion, strong and well made, by Trade a Painter and Glazier.

Walter Burges, born in the Army, but rear’d in Fromme, Sommersetshire, aged 22 Years, Size 5 Feet 5 Inches and a half, grey Eyes, light brown Hair, fresh Complexion, straight and well made, by Trade a Scribler.

Luke Melly, born in Dudley, Worcestershire, aged 20 Years, 5 Feet 5 Inches, light brown Eyes, dark brown Hair, fresh Complexion, strong and well made, a Cut over the right Eyebrow, by Trade a Scythe Smith.

Nathaniel Brown, born in Market Dearham, in the County of Norfolk, aged 19 Years, size 5 Feet 6 Inches and a half, grey Eyes, brown Hair, fresh Complexion, straight and well made, a small Cut on each side of his Forehead, by Trade a Cordwainer.

The above Deserters went off in their Regimental Cloathing, the Buttons of which have a Star on them, and the Number 63 in the Center.

Whoever apprehends any of the abovementioned Deserters, shall receive a Reward (over the Allowance of Parliament) of one Guinea for each of them, by applying to the Commanding Officer of the Regiment at Belfast, to Capt. Follett of said Regiment at Ballynahinch, or to William Montgomery, Esq, Mary-street, Dublin.

[Belfast Newsletter, 4 June 1773]

Both the ad and the men described are quite typical. Although we don't have on hand the muster rolls from the time that these men deserted, we guess from their ages that they had all joined the regiment recently - most peacetime enlistees were in their very late teens or early twenties. Because they were in regimental clothing, however, it is clear that they were not new recruits but had been in the regiment probably for at least a year. Drummers often joined the army at a younger age but, contrary to the popular image of the drummer boy, many men stayed in this role for their entire military careers, well into their 40s and even 50s. The fact that John Williams had already learned a trade suggests that he did not join the army until his late teens at the earliest. Walter Burges, although born in the army, was not raised in the army so it is probable that he too enlisted at a typical age rather than a young age; he had learned a wool-combing specialty known as scribbling which involved the combing of rough wool in preparation for more refined carding.

The muster rolls of the 63rd show us that some of these men returned to the army, either voluntarily or by being captured. When the regiment came ashore in Boston on 14 June 1775, drummer John Williams and privates Walter Burgess and Francis Scott were on the rolls of the light infantry company. After only two days in America they were hotly engaged in the battle of Bunker Hill on 17 June; Burgess was mortally wounded and died four days later.

Drummer Williams continued serving in the light infantry (probably using the hunting horn favored by these active troops rather than a drum) until he was taken prisoner by the Americans on 14 February 1778 outside of Philadelphia. He remained in captivity for about two years; the date of his repatriation is not known and he is absent from one semi-annual muster roll, but by the second half of 1780 he was back with his company.

His good fortune did not last long. The light infantry company of the 63rd Regiment was part of the army under General Cornwallis that surrendered at Yorktown. He was once again made a prisoner of war, along with Luke Melly who had been serving in the light infantry company throughout the war.

Although the British prisoners taken at Yorktown were repatriated in the first half of 1783 when hostilities were officially ended, some of them did not return. Tempted by the possibility of owning landing and beginning new lives in America, an estimated 20% of the incarcerated soldiers absconded from captivity to seek their fortunes in America. Among the 10 in the 63rd Regiment's light infantry company who did so were John Williams and Luke Melly. On 1 July 1783 they were written off of the regiment's muster rolls as deserters.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Louisa Martin, 17th Regiment of Foot (?)

2011-05-01T07:19:00.000-07:00

Most of the entries in this blog are composed in a formulaic way. I find an item concerning an individual soldier or soldier's wife - a newspaper account, record of a court martial, entry in an orderly book, or what have you. Then, I find the soldier on the regiment's muster rolls and trace his career to the greatest extent possible. This provides a reasonable view of the events that the man or woman experienced based on the movements and activities of the regiment.

A search on the Access2Archives web site, which catalogs documents in many regional record offices in Great Britain, turned up an interesting item about the wife of a serjeant in the 17th Regiment of Foot. Even though the web catalog offers only an abstract, the item from the Quarter Sessions of Worcestershire for midsummer, 1782, gives a look at the plight of an army widow who returned to England:

Examination of Louisa Martin, widow of Charles Martin, Sergeant in 17th. Regt. of Foot, who died in America. They were married 19 years ago at St. James, Westminster: he was born in Croydon where he was apprenticed to Thomas Green, cabinet maker, & was settled there: he died 6 months ago in New York: 7 years ago she went to America & landed at Liverpool on her return a fortnight ago.

A constable was ordered to convey here to Croydon, the town where she would be legally eligible for the support due to a widow. The information correlates with what we know about army widows - that they were given the option of returning to Great Britain at government expense.

This brief record of Louisa Martin's examination provides very valuable information about a serjeant in the 17th Regiment, including when and where he was married and the career that he pursued before joining the army. The 17th Regiment, which saw extensive and diverse service in America from its arrival in 1775 through the final evacuation in 1783. The regiment had significant numbers of men captured at the 1777 battle of Princeton, the 1779 fall of Stony Point, and the 1781 Yorktown campaign. The career of Charles Martin would surely be an interesting one.

There is, however, a problem tracing that career: Thanks to Will Tatum, historian at the David Library of the American Revolution, we have access to the muster rolls of the 17th Regiment of Foot. No man by the name of Charles Martin served in the regiment - not among the serjeants or the rank and file soldiers; not even a man with a similar name. I also checked the rolls of the 17th Light Dragoons, but found no such man in that regiment either. Thinking of logical typographical errors in the web catalog, I checked other regiments that ended in 7 and had served in America - the 27th, 37th, 47th and 57th. No Charles Martin. Maybe other regiments starting with 1 that were in New York in 1776 and still in the area in 1782? There were none; the 10th, 14th, 15th, 18th and 19th Regiments did not have service that correlates to the story related by Louisa Martin.

For the moment, all we can do is keep this interesting account on file and hope that clarifying information turns up.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

William Keaton, 18th and 43rd Regiments of Foot

2011-04-07T12:48:00.000-07:00

When he arrived at Yorktown, Virginia in the summer of 1781, William Keaton (also spelled Keyton, Keatton and Keton on various muster rolls) was a highly experienced and very well-traveled soldier. We do not know when he joined the army, but thanks to researcher Steven M. Baule we know that he was already a private soldier in the 18th (Royal Irish) Regiment of Foot when that corps arrived in America in July of 1767. The regiment spent two years in Philadelphia. Keaton's company then traveled overland to Fort Pitt, where they embarked in boats that took them down the Ohio River and up the Mississippi River to Fort Chartres, a British outpost in Illinois. There he remained from mid-1769 until mid-1772 when the post was abandoned and the detachment of the 18th Regiment returned to Philadelphia.

In 1774, the portion of the 18th in Philadelphia marched across New Jersey to New York, then boarded transports for Boston. In this city Keaton and his comrades saw the outbreak of hostilities and the devastating battle of Bunker Hill. At the end of that year orders were given for the able-bodied men of the 18th Regiment in Boston to be drafted into other regiments; William Keaton transferred into the 43rd Regiment of Foot.

Boston was evacuated in March 1776 and the army regrouped in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The men of the 43rd and the rest of the army spent two months practicing new tactics and field maneuvers in the countryside around Halifax in preparation for a new campaign. By July they were landed on Staten Island; the 43rd was now part of the 5th Brigade of Sir William Howe's powerful army, along with the 22nd, 54th and 63rd Regiments. After a whirlwind Autumn campaign that secured New York city and the surrounding regions, the 5th Brigade was part of a force that landed in Rhode Island in early December.

Rhode Island was the home of the 43rd Regiment for the next three years. While a garrison in strict terms, the island in Narragansett Bay was an active theater of war. Besides being the site of major fighting during August 1778 there were countless incursions and skirmishes throughout the period. Soldiers manned guard posts day and night year round, ever vigilant for the next American attempt to harass or unseat the garrison.

When Rhode Island was evacuated in October 1779, Keaton and the 43rd returned to the New York area where they spent the following year in a relatively calm garrison. 1781, however, saw them on campaign again, this time sailing to Virginia. Sent to reinforce Cornwallis' army, they arrived on the banks of the James River in the late Spring. By August they were part of the substantial army establishing a post around Yorktown.

William Keaton had spent 14 years marching, sailing, working and fighting all over the American colonies. He had seen the wilderness with the 18th Regiment and several significant battles with the 43rd, and had certainly lost many comrades along the way. Now he was helping to lay the groundwork for the action that would effectively end the war, but he would not see this dramatic culmination. In in hot Virginia weather of early August the hazards of military campaigning caught up to him. On either the 7th or the 9th, depending upon which source is accurate, thunderstorms pelted the area. William Keaton was struck and killed by lightening, as was a soldier's wife in the 43rd and a soldier of the Queen's Rangers.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

John Pearce, 3rd and 22nd Regiments

2011-03-27T06:04:00.000-07:00

John Pearce joined the 3rd Regiment of Foot (the Buffs) in October 1763. We know nothing of his age, nativity or background, and we have no details of the first 11 years of his military career. Whether he was a good, steady soldier during those years or a difficult discipline case remains unknown, but a surviving set of records for the 3rd Regiment that begins in 1774 gives a startling picture of him during a brief period in 1774 and 1775.

According to a summary list of regimental courts martial conducted in the 3rd Regiment in Ireland from August 1774 through December 1777, John Pearce was tried on 17 November 1774 “For being out of his Barracks till 10 O'Clock at night, & breeding a Riot in a beer house.” This unruly activity earned him a punishment of 100 lashes, which he received. Infractions like this, and the corresponding punishment, were not unusual, but it bears noting that only a small portion of the regiment ran afoul of military justice in this way; the majority of men in the 3rd Regiment do not appear in the court martial list at all, and among those who do appear are many repeat offenders.

It is difficult to imagine suffering 100 lashes, and such a punishment was intended to humble a soldier and make an impression on his comrades. Nonetheless, only four days later Pearce was tried again, this time “For making away with his necessaries.” This time he was awarded 300 lashes, and the record shows that once again he received all of them. How a man could survive such a punishment is difficult to image. Among the duties of the regimental surgeon was to help insure this survival by observing the punishment, seeing that the lashes were laid on in such a way as not to endanger vital organs and monitoring the victim's health throughout the punishment; the surgeon had the authority to stop the punishment if he believed the victim might die from its effects. Indeed, one regimental surgeon wrote an entire chapter concerning details to be observed while men were lashed, including specific examples from his own service.

Only four months later, in March 1775, Pearce was once more brought to trial, now “For selling a pr of Stockings, being out of his Barracks at 9 O'Clock & defrauding a Publican.” He was again sentenced to 300 lashes, and again received all of them. 700 lashes within a four month period. Recall that Pearce was not a new soldier; by March 1775 he was in his 11th year in the army and was certainly in his late twenties or thirties in age. Since the surviving trial records begin only in August 1774 we have no way of knowing whether he had a sudden turn to poor discipline or if he was routinely in trouble with his superiors, but it is difficult to imagine that he was punished at this rate year after year.

Events in America brought a turn of fortune for Pearce. A large reinforcement was being sent to quell the rapidly deteriorating situation there, and men were needed to fill out the ranks of those regiments. Men were taken from regiments that were to remain in Ireland and put into those going on service. The regiments that provided the men were ordered to give preference to volunteers, and order men only if enough suitable volunteers did not come forward. We don't know whether Pearce saw this as his opportunity to escape the officers who enforced discipline on him, or whether the officers were the ones who took the opportunity to get rid of Pearce. Perhaps it was a mutual agreement. Regardless, Pearce was drafted from the 3rd Regiment to the 22nd Regiment on 9 May 1775. This says something about Pearce's fortitude, because only men suitable for campaigning were allowed to be drafted and the receiving regiment had the right to refuse men deemed unsuitable. In spite of his recent 700 lashes, Pearce was accepted into his new regiment and within days was sailing with it to America.

John Pearce arrived with the 22nd Regiment in Boston in late June or early July (depending upon which ship he was on). He must have remained reasonably fit in spite of his punishments, because he was soon put into the light infantry company. A final testimony to his physical fitness, his boldness, and to his discontent with the army is that he made off from the encampment on Boston Common on the night of 18-19 August and swam to Roxbury where an American soldier made a diary entry recording the arrival of a British deserter. To date we have found no further information concerning his whereabouts. What his legacy tells us is that it was somehow possible for men to survive the seemingly outrageous punishments inflicted by the lash, and remain in a state of health that allowed them to accomplish rigorous physical activity.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Trades in the 22nd Regiment

2011-03-11T12:07:00.000-08:00

Many installments in this blog have mentioned soldier's trades, the lines of work that men practiced before joining the army. The idea that men acquired skills in a profession before joining the army may be challenging from a modern perspective, but when taken in the context of the era it makes complete sense. During peace time the army strove to recruit men between the ages of 17 and 25 to become career soldiers; regimental recruiting officers could make their own decisions, but the information we have on individual soldiers bears out that these age guidelines were generally followed and most soldiers began their careers in their late teens or early twenties.

In an age when schooling was not guaranteed and even well educated men were likely to attend school only into their mid-teens, boys and men needed to do something gainful with their lives before they were old enough to even consider joining the army. This meant pursuing a specific trade either in a formal capacity as an apprentice or informally by simply working for someone in the trade, or by doing whatever work one could find.

The few soldiers who have left accounts of their pre-military employment make it clear that work could begin early in life. Thomas Watson started working in coal mines at the age of 7; although he occasionally found other work, mining remained his typical employment until he enlisted in the 23rd Regiment of Foot in 1772 at about 19 years of age. Thomas Cranfield, son of a baker, attended school until age 14 and then was apprenticed to a tailor; although he ran away from several employers, tailoring remained his primary profession until he enlisted in the 39th Regiment of Foot in 1777 at the age of 19 and went on to serve in Gibraltar.

From various sources, we have information on the trade of 322 soldiers in the 22nd Regiment of Foot who served in the American Revolution. Of these, over half the men had skilled trades, while the remainder were listed as "laborers", period parlance for men who had no specific skill. Laborers may have worked as farm hands, unskilled construction workers, dock workers, or in various other capacities where no specialized training was required. The identified trades, in order of predominance, are:

143 Laborers
41 Weavers
22 Shoemakers
16 Tailors
9 Carpenters
6 each: Wagon Driver, Wool comber
5 Breeches makers
4 each: Cutler, Cooper, Gardiner, Miner
3 each: Baker, Blacksmith, Bricklayer, Cordwainer, Flax dresser, Mason, Ribbon Weaver
2 each: Barber, Cabinet Maker, Linen Weaver, Nailor, Silversmith, Tanner
1 each: Brazier, Butcher, Cloth Dresser, Currier, Farmer, File smith, Glass cutter, Glazier, Gunmaker, Harness Maker, Hatter, Hosier, Miller, Musician, Needle Maker, Painter, Sadler, Sawyer, Spectacle Maker, Stocking Maker, Stone Sawyer, Thatcher, Tobacconist, Victualler, Wheelwright, Wire drawer

This gives a total of 179 men with trades and 143 without, or about 56% with skilled trades.

It is difficult to say whether this sample of 322 men is representative of the 1005 men who served in the 22nd Regiment in America at some point during the American War. For example, the bulk of the data is from records associated with pensions, and it is possible that men with trades were more likely to get pensions that those without. Even if this data is does not accurately show the proportion of tradesmen in the army, it at least shows the variety of trades.

The preponderance of textile workers, particularly weavers, is a simple reflection of Britain's economy that was strongly based on the textile trade. The significant number of shoemakers, tailors and other clothiers, and artificers such as smiths, coopers, carpenters and leather workers, shows that the regiment had within its ranks the skills necessary to be self-sufficient when on campaign or in far-flung garrisons. It also makes clear that many soldiers had opportunities to work and earn money over and above the base pay they received from the army.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Criminals: Edward Allen, Edward Kitson, William Davis, 46th Regiment

2011-02-23T19:25:00.000-08:00

Much is made of the notion that the ranks of British regiments were filled with convicts. This was discussed in some detail in a previous post that did not deal with men who served in America. The fact is that few criminals were in fact recruited, and only a few of that number were sent to serve in the American colonies.

But a few were. This opens the obvious question of how such men fared as soldiers. If we could trace a portion of the career of such a man, we'd have a better impression of their value to the military. Fortunately, we can trace three.

In the summer of 1776 recruiting was was occurring at a furious pace throughout Great Britain. Many regiments had been sent to America, and the size of all of those deployed to America had been increased. The sudden increase in demand taxed the recruiting mechanisms which led to the evaluation of all sources including fit men sentenced to prison for minor crimes. All evidence indicates that only a few dozen or perhaps a few hundred men were drawn from this source; the physical demands of the military limited the number of potential recruits to begin with, and prison conditions rapidly destroyed the health of convicts leaving very few to for the army to choose from.

A recruiting officer from the 46th Regiment of Foot nonetheless located enlisted "six very fine Lads now confined in Shrewsbury Goal for petty Offences" and wrote to the Secretary at War for and order to have them discharged from jail. Only three of them served with the regiment in America. We can only speculate on what happened to the other three. The recruiting officer's request to allow them to enlist may have been denied for reasons unknown; they could have failed the physical examination required for all recruits; they may have failed attestation before a magistrate either due to their own change of heart or the magistrate's insights; they may have been drafted from the 46th's recruiting parties into some other regiment, a practice that became more common later on in the war but which is not known to have been common in 1776 and early 1777; they may have deserted; they may have had disciplinary issues that caused them to be transferred to corps bound for undesirable locations, the military equivalent of transporting criminals; they may have been discharged due to health issues, which occurred sometimes in Great Britain and sometimes in America after a rigorous sea voyage; they could have died before joining the regiment in America. Regardless of the reason, they provide further proof that although criminals were offered the opportunity to enlist they did not always end up on service in America.

The three who did serve joined the 46th Regiment in the first half of 1777. One of them, Edward Allen, served normally for the next year and a half, at which time the 46th was sent to the West Indies. There is a one-year gap in the muster rolls, after which Allen no longer appears; we know nothing of what happened to him, but he was probably discharged under normal circumstances.

The other two, Edward Kitson (or Kidson) and William Davis, are more interesting. Kitson was appointed corporal in January 1778, a bit less than a year after he arrived in America. He served in this capacity in the West Indies, and then became a serjeant in August 1782. When the regiment returned to England that year, he went on furlough. We don't have access to the subsequent muster rolls, but it is obvious from this career that Kitson was a capable and trusted soldier. William Davis, the third petty criminal to join the 46th, was appointed corporal in November 1782 and was still serving at the end of that year.

Although we haven't found any indication that any of these men received pensions, it is clear enough that they were capable soldiers and that two of them, at least, had long and distinguished careers. The government and the military benefited well by choosing to give them an opportunity instead of simply leaving them in prison.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

James Lipside, 26th Regiment, and John Chatham, 10th Regiment

2011-02-08T11:55:00.000-08:00

I was chatting with a friend about my interest in researching British soldiers, explaining that the allure is in discovering personal attributes and experiences that humanize the otherwise-lifeless names on muster rolls. As an attention-getter, I mentioned a couple of cases of men who had wildly deviant behaviors. My friend asked, were there any saints? This is an excellent question. It is a great irony that the majority of soldiers were well-behaved and dutiful, good qualities which caused very little about them to be recorded. The experiences of the relatively small number of malefactors, on the other hand, survive in court records, journals and other sources because they caught the attention of administrators and onlookers.

We do, however, know of a few saints, or at least of men whose lives were characterized by benevolent actions rather than criminal ones. Roger Lamb and Thomas Watson, both soldiers in the 23rd Regiment of Foot, turned to religion after their military service; the former became a school teacher and the later a minister. Probably others did the same, still awaiting our rediscovery of their lives' accomplishments.

There are other soldiers who committed singular acts of selfless heroism that deserve to be remembered. Two such instances received brief mentions in newspapers. The first concerns a soldier of the 26th Regiment of Foot, James Lipside (as his name appears on the muster rolls). We have very little background on him beyond that he actually served in the regiment. In the summer of 1772 the 26th Regiment was on service in America and was moving from New York city to Albany by sailing up the Hudson river. An Albany newspaper recorded an event that apparently occurred during disembarkation at that city:

On Sunday the 24th [May] James Lapseed, a Grenadier of the 26th Regiment (the third division of which was then on their passage from New York to this City) standing on the Gunwale of the Sloop Beggar’s Benison, dangling a Child in his Arms, unfortunately fell overboard. The Sloop being then underway, the people could give him no Assistance. He kept the Child above Water, and swam a great Way; but his strength failing, he let the Child go, and immediately sunk. The Child was soon taken up by a Canoe; and, having Blood let, perfectly recovered.

This underscores the hazards of military operations even in peace time. Transporting soldiers and their families by water was attended with a variety of dangers, from storms during ocean crossings to mishaps like this one that led to the demise of a soldier. Fortunately the child, presumably of the regiment and perhaps Lipside's own, was saved. Were it not for this article, Lipside's fate would be completely unknown because no muster roll survives recording his death.

A few years later, still before the outbreak of hostilities, a strikingly similar incident occurred in Boston:

Last Wednesday Afternoon a Soldier belonging to the 10th Regiment was accidentally drowned as he was attempting to take up a seafaring Lad that had fell from a Wharf in this Town; the Lad was saved.

The date corresponds to 28 December 1774, a dangerous time to enter the frigid waters of Boston harbor. The muster rolls of the 10th Regiment show no man dying on that day, but John Chatham is listed as having died on 31 Dec 1774; no other man of the regiment died within that week, so we conclude that Chatham was the one who drowned. Had we only the muster rolls to rely on, we would assume that he died of illness and would know nothing of his heroic act.

While not the stuff of sainthood, the selfless actions of James Lipside and John Chatham show us that British soldiers were as likely as anyone else to shun personal safety in order to rescue another in danger.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Prisoners of war: James Buchanon and William Brooks, 9th Regiment

2011-01-22T15:55:00.000-08:00

We recently wrote about James Buchanan, a corporal in the 9th Regiment of Foot who experienced some misadventures while a prisoner of war. We incorrectly gave his name a James, an error that has since been corrected. There was a James Buchanan in the 9th Regiment, a serjeant, who also ran into trouble while a prisoner of war in Massachusetts after the surrender of Burgoyne's army at Saratoga in 1777.

James Buchanan was born in Glasgow, Scotland, in 1742. We don't know when he joined the army, but by 1775 he was a corporal and was appointed serjeant some time in 1776. (As might be expected, the name 'Buchanan' is spelled various ways in the muster rolls and other documents.) Like many British soldiers he was married and his wife and child accompanied him to America. As far as can be discerned from the muster rolls, he saw all of the 9th Regiment's service in America from its arrival in Quebec in 1776, the rapid campaign to Lake Champlain that immediately ensued, the winter at posts in Canada. When the 1777 campaign began, Buchanan marched with the regiment while his family remained behind in Montreal; although some wives accompanied their husbands on campaigns, it was common for some to remain behind in anticipation of joining the regiment again when the campaigning ended. She would never see her husband again.

The fateful 1777 campaign culminated in the Convention of Saratoga, which saw six British infantry regiments (as well as companies from several others, several German regiments, and a contingent of artillery) surrendered. The Convention directed that these men be returned to Europe, and they were marched to Boston in anticipation of board ships. Instead, they were put into hastily-build barracks outside of town while politicians and military officials dickered about whether one side or the other had violated the terms of the Convention. Campaigning had been difficult, but was the sort of hardship that soldiers expected to endure. Captivity, on the other hand, brought unfamiliar challenges for career soldiers - boredom, lack of purpose, and myriad temptations.

Around the time that Corporal Buchanan was getting into his own troubles, Serjeant Buchanan was entrusted with money from his company officer to purchase shoes for his fellow prisoners. This was a typical task for a serjeant, but Buchanan succumbed to unmilitary influences and squandered the money in a way that has not been recorded. Fearing the punishment that was surely due to him, he determined to at least earn back the money. He deserted the barracks and made his way to the area of Worcester, Massachusetts. Whether he worked there, or for how long, is not clear, but at some point he met up with another fugitive from the 9th Regiment, private William Brooks.

Brooks was from Wednesbury, Staffordshire, was 27 years old, and had also been in the regiment since before 1775. A bizarre event involving Brooks has occurred during the regiment's voyage to America in 1776, as recorded by Roger Lamb:

April 20th. Our ship sailing at the rate of five miles an hour, a soldier whose name was Brooks, leaped off the forecastle into the ocean; the vessel in a moment made her way over him, and he arose at the stern. He immediately with all his might, swam from the ship. The men who were upon the deck alarmed the captain and officers, who had just sat down to dinner; the ship was ordered to be put about, and the boat hoisted out, and manned, the unfortunate man was soon overtaken, and it was with difficulty that the sailors could force him into the boat. When he was brought back he was ordered between decks, and a centinel placed over him; the next morning he was in a high fever, and continued very bad the remainder of the voyage. The fear of punishment was the cause of this desperate action, as the day before he had stolen a shirt from one of his messmates knapsacks.

Buchanon and Brooks set out further into the country towards Worcester in February, looking for work. In the town of Brookfield they passed by the well-appointed house of one Joshua Spooner where they were invited in. There they met the lady of the house, Bathsheba Spooner. She was the daughter of Timothy Ruggles, a prominent Massachusetts loyalist. She was young, beautiful, seductive and in an unhappy marriage.

The ensuing events need not be detailed here because an entire book has been written on the subject. Murdered by his Wife by Deborah Navas (University of Massachusetts Press, 1999) examines in detail how these two British soldiers were ensnared in a murder plot that resulted in their executions in Worcester on 2 July. Not only did the two of them acknowledge the justice of their demise, but it induced them to a dramatic spiritual transformation. Buchanan was particularly penitent. He wrote letters to his officers "full of religious contrition" and impressed upon Brooks the importance of such a viewpoint. As a soldier Brooks had been "notoriously prophane, and almost illiterate." During his confinement of only a few months, he learned to read the scripture and discuss it with his fellows facing execution - Buchanon, Bathsheba Spooner, and a young American soldier named Ezra Ross.

Roger Lamb was allowed by his officers and the American authorities to visit the doomed prisoners and witnessed their execution:

The malefactors had to pass two miles to the gallows, and, although the former part of the day was serene and fine, of a sudden, as they approached the place, the sky was covered with clouds, and a storm of thunder followed with copious rain, attached additional terrors to their ignominious catastrophe.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Pensioner: Samuel Newby, 10th Regiment of Foot

2011-01-08T19:14:00.000-08:00

When British soldiers were discharged, they received a document certifying that they had been legally released from their military obligation. This one-page document was usually a printed form with standardized language, having the specifics for the individual soldier written in. Most regiments used generic forms sold by printers, while a few regiments had forms printed specially for them; sometimes the entire document was handwritten.

The information on the form included the soldier's name, age, place of birth, and overall duration of military service. His trade was usually included, and sometimes a breakdown of the regiments in which he had served. Some forms included physical attributes such as height, hair and eye color, visage (the general shape of the man's face - round, square or long), and complexion (light or dark). These descriptive details made it possible to confirm that the man carrying the document was the true owner.

Men were granted pensions if the army pension board determined that they were unable to earn their own living due to infirmities incurred during army service. The discharge form included space to describe this infirmity, and the short descriptions give many fascinating insights into the hazards of military life. In addition to overt wounds or injuries, legions of pensioners suffered from straightforward ailments such as being "rheumatic", "asthmatic", "dropsical", and the widely used catchall "worn out in the service."

Occasionally the description reveals an entire dimension of the soldier's career. Such is the case with Samuel Newby of the 10th Regiment of Foot. From muster rolls we know that he spent 30 years in the 10th Regiment of Foot, from 1758 tho 1788, including the years that regiment was in America. He spent the early part of this time as a private soldier, then in February 1776 in Boston was appointed drummer, a role he retained for the rest of his career.

His discharge not only tells us that he was born in Limerick city, Ireland in 1737 (based on his age of 51 when he was discharged in 1788), but also that his 'trade' was 'Musician.' This explains, to some extent, his service as both a private soldier and a drummer. Many regiments had bands of music but there was no provision on the regimental establishment for musicians, only drummers and fifers. Regiments that had musicians for their band had to carry them on the rolls as private soldiers during times when the establishment allowed for only one drummer per company, because drummers were necessary for military duties. In 1775, the establishment for regiments in America was augmented to allow for two drummers in each company. In those rare cases where we can explicitly identify musicians we find that they were often appointed as drummers. Such was the case with Samuel Newby.

Remarkable is the reason that Newby was allowed a pension. His discharge says that he was infirm due to "being worn out on account of his long service and Constant Practice on Musical Wind Instruments." Rather than remain on the pension rolls, however, Newby enlisted in the 54th Regiment of Foot and served for another five years, taking his final discharge in 1793 at the age of 56, having served 35 years in the army.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Deserter: Samuel James, 52nd Regiment of Foot

2010-12-14T19:31:00.000-08:00

Most of the entries in this series tell the story of a soldier, pieced together from primary sources. This entry illustrates something different: that many stories, in fact the majority of them, go untold for want of sufficient information. We have enough to know that something interesting happened, but not enough to know what it was. This serves as a reminder that every single soldier had a career that included interesting moments and events, but details of only a scant few survive.

Samuel James joined the army at the age of 22 in 1757. After 18 years in that regiment, he was drafted into the 52nd Regiment at the end of 1775. The 59th had been on service in North America for several years when war broke out. Being under strength and due to return to Great Britain, the regiment's able-bodied men were drafted - transferred into other regiments serving in America - while unfit men were discharged and and the officers, non-commissioned officers and a cadre of long-serving soldiers returned to the British Isles to recruit anew.

That Samuel James was drafted at the age of 40 after 18 years of service is proof that career soldiers remained fit for service well into middle age. James began service in the 52nd Regiment of Foot, moving with it from Boston to Halifax and then to the New York area. During the successful British campaign to take New York City in late 1776, Samuel James was reported as a deserter in a memorandum circulated in general orders:

Memdm

9th Octr 76 Suposed to have Deserted from his Majesties 52d Regt on the 7th Inst (Samuel James) About 5 feet 9 I High brown Complection markd with the small pox 41 years of Age born at Fenningham Glocestershire by trade a Labourer have been 18 years in the 59th Rgt had on when he whent away the Regtl Cloathing of the 52 Regt.

This memorandum, recorded in a regimental orderly book kept in the 37th Regiment of Foot, provides all of the information that we have on James besides his service record, and saves us the trouble of tracing his service in the muster rolls of the 59th Regiment.

The rolls of the 52nd Regiment duly record the date that he joined that regiment, 25 December 1775, but also introduce an element of mystery to his story. There is no record of Samuel James' desertion. He is carried on the rolls of the 52nd steadily until the 52nd was drafted in late 1778. By this time, with 20 years of service, James was discharged. There is no evidence that he received a pension or continued to serve in a garrison battalion.

The only thing that is clear is that he returned from desertion, or was caught, within the muster period extending from June through December 1776; because he was present at the beginning and end of this period, there is no indication of his absence on the muster roll. There is also no evidence that he was tried by a general court martial for desertion. Either his absence did not result in desertion charges, or he was tried by a regimental court for a lesser crime; records of regimental courts have not survived. The semi-annual roll prepared in June 1778 indicates that he was on furlough at that time, a vague suggestion that regardless of whatever happened in October 1776 he was trusted enough to spend time away from the regiment. He had returned by the time the next rolls were prepared in September, shortly before he was discharged.

But that is all we know. Somehow, he got separated from the regiment in October 1776 for a long enough time to warrant a search. Clearly he returned somehow, for some reason, but we have no details. And this unrecorded vignette is but one incident in a 20 year career in two regiments that saw extensive foreign service and several major engagements in America. It is unfortunately that we know so little about him.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

John Gilbert, Musician, 22nd Regiment of Foot

2010-12-05T19:27:00.000-08:00

Did soldiers own things? That's a simple question that is very difficult to answer. We have few documents that give us any answers, largely because there are no categories of 'official' documents to record such information. Army documents record what belonged to the army and, in the case of uniform clothing, what the soldier purchased from the army, but there was no reason to record those things that were the soldier's personal property - if, in fact, he had any. Journals, letters or other writings by the soldiers themselves are extremely rare, too few to answer the question (but, in the future, we will revisit those sources).

Conventional wisdom would suggest that the soldier's meager pay would afford him little opportunity to purchase much, and his itinerant life would make it difficult to retain any but small possessions. we would expect that something like a watch, even portable, would be too expensive for the common soldier to own. Conventional wisdom, though, is often wrong; we know of two soldiers in the 22nd Regiment of Foot who owned watches. This is not many of the 1005 men who served in the regiment during the war, but they happen to be the only two personal possessions that we know about in this regiment. Given the difficult of finding any information, the fact that these two watches are known is either remarkable, or an indication that watches were more accessible than we would have guessed. Perhaps watches then were like automobiles today - even though new ones were expensive, there were enough used ones on the market to make them accessible even to people of modest means.

A previous installment concerned Richard Hallum; we know he owned a watch because a fellow soldier tried to steal it from him. We also know that Hallum was a wagon driver, which perhaps allowed him to earn more money than other soldiers; that's only a guess, though. Another watch-owning soldier in the 22nd Regiment was John Gilbert, one of two men in the regiment with this name.

John Gilbert joined the regiment in May 1766, and is carried on the rolls as a private soldier for much of his career. For reasons that we do not know, he transferred to the 64th Regiment of Foot in November 1776 where he was also carried as a private, then returned to the 22nd Regiment in December 1779. It is possible, but not certain, that he was the servant to an officer who transferred to the 64th, Charles Laton. It was common for private soldiers to transfer to other regiments, but quite rare for a man to transfer back again. It is particularly interesting that Gilbert left the 22nd at the time the regiment was embarking in New York for Rhode Island, and returned immediately after the regiment returned to the New York garrison.

Shortly after returning to the 22nd Regiment he was appointed as a drummer. In 1784 he was reduced again to private soldier. This is consistent with several men known to have served in the regiment's band of music - they were usually carried on the rolls as privates, but for the last few years of the war were carried as drummers instead (but this is not true for all bandsmen, only some of them).

John Gilbert prepared a will on 4 April 1786 when the regiment was in Plymouth, England. He was probably quite ill at the time; he died 17 days later. The will refers to him as a 'Musician in the 22nd Regt.', confirming his role at least at that time; perhaps his musical talent was the reason for his temporary service in the 64th Regiment.

The will refers to his father in Surrey, also named John. Gilbert directed that all of his 'goods, money owed, prize money, etc.' go to Thomas Gilbert, apparently his brother, who would share it equally with another brother, William, and a married sister in Surrey, Elizabeth Alstous. The money was substantial; Gilbert's father had lodged 100 pounds sterling in his name, and Gilbert surely had accumulated some savings in his 20 years of service that probably included extra income from work as a musician.

John Gilbert also owned a 'Silver Watch & furniture' which he left to his sister. While we could assume that this was a sign of some wealth, the will reveals another possible explanation for this private soldier owning a watch: his brother William was a watchmaker.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Mary and Cornelius Driscoll (Driskill), 10th Regiment of Foot

2010-11-22T12:20:00.000-08:00

Last week I gave a presentation at a workshop for history teachers, hosted by the David Library of the American Revolution. The topic, women and work during the era of the war, is often explored in history classes in various colleges and history programs you can take online. My specific subject was wives of British soldiers, the largely overlooked thousands of women who worked within the army infrastructure to help provide for their families. We know from many examples that this was a difficult life, particularly when the army went on campaign (although the difficulties must be taken in context of what else was available to working-class people of the era).

The challenges and hazards that could face army women are exemplified in a petition written by Mary Driskill (or Driscoll), wife of a grenadier in the 10th Regiment of Foot. It is not known where she was from, when she married a soldier or how long she was in America. It is clear that she was with the British army in Philadelphia in December 1777 when an expedition made its way towards the American army that was establishing an encampment at Valley Forge. Mary Driskill accompanied her husband on this foray when they skirmished with an American force under the command of General Lafayette. Nearly two years later, back in New York, she wrote a petition to the commander in chief recounting her subsequent experiences:

To his Excellency, Sir Henry Clinton, Knight of the Bath, General and Commander in Chief, of all his Majesty’s Forces Within the Colonies Lying on the Atlantic Ocean from nova Scotia to West Florida Inclusive &c. &c. &c. –

The Humble Petition of Mary Driskill, a Poor Distressed Widow Belonging to the Tenth Regiment, Capt. Fitzgeralds Company of Grenadiers

Mosty Humbly Sheweth

That your Poor Petitioners Husband was killed at Chestnut Hill [skirmish near Philadelphia, December 1777], after which your Petitioner was taken prisoner, and put into Trentown Jail, out of which your Petitioner made her Escape, and was again taken and put into Lancaster Prison, from which, along with Three of General Burgoins men your petitioner Escaped Again, and was again taken and cast into Carlisle Prison, from which also your Petitioner (along with Two Women more, and With Two Twins, of which your Petitioner was delivered in Prison,) made her Escape and in a Canno came Over the Susquehana River, and thence, by many hardships, came to this City.

Your poor Petitioner is in a Very Disconsolate Condition, having by means of Lying in the Woods with her Two Twins, lost her hearing, and has nothing to Support herself and Children, nor a house to shelter her and little Ones, from the Inclemency of the Weather, your Poor Petitioner looks up to your Excellency for Redress; and may the almighty God, Who is a Father to the Fatherless and a Comforter to the Widow, Bless your Excellency with every Blessing from the upper and Nether Spring, So prays your poor and Distressed Petitioner.

Brooklyn Long-Island Novr: 27th: 1779

Her petition was endorsed by Major General Francis Smith of the 10th Regiment, the same officer who had led the British expedition to Concord on 19 April 1775; Smith confirmed that Driskill was the wife of a soldier in the 10th Regiment and "bore a good Character."

Lists of prisoners of war are fragmentary, and we have found no corroboration that Mary Diskill was in any of the prisons that she mentions. Here story is plausible, though, particularly in light of the large numbers of incarcerated prisoners from Burgoyne's army that made escapes similar to the ones that she describes.

The exercise for the teacher's workshop was to be a demonstration of the use of multiple primary sources to corroborate each other. I assumed that it would be an easy task to find Mary Driskill's husband on the muster rolls of the 10th Regiment, get an idea of how long he had been in the army, and verify his death in December 1777. It was, in fact, easy to find Cornelius Driscoll (using the spelling on the muster rolls). His story made hers that much more interesting (assuming that they had been married for a few years) because he was drafted into the 10th Regiment of Foot from the 50th Regiment in August 1776. The 50th had been in the West Indies for a few years before being sent to join the army in New York; tropical service took its toll on the men, leaving the regiment so depleted that it was not fit for campaigning in America. Upon arrival in New York, the able-bodied men were drafted - transferred - into other regiments and the officers, non-commissioned officers and drummers sent home to recruit. Men unfit for service were also sent home to be discharged or stay on the recruiting service. We have not had the opportunity to trace Cornelius Driscoll's service in the 50th Regiment.

More intriguing is that Cornelius Driscoll did not die in 1777. He is carried on the rolls of the 10th Regiment until late 1778, when that regiment was drafted. Driscoll was certainly able-bodied at that time, because he went into the 5th Regiment of Foot an on to service in the West Indies once again. Due to gaps in the muster rolls his fate is unknown; he is not on the next available rolls for the 5th Regiment which were prepared in 1780. He could have been discharged, drafted into yet another regiment, died, deserted, or gone missing as a prisoner of war.

This information makes Mary Driskill's plight all the more interesting. Somehow she became separated from her husband in December 1777. Perhaps he had gone missing during the action at Chestnut Hill and she had gone looking for him, leading to her capture. Perhaps she had seen him wounded and assumed he was dead before her own capture. There is also the chance that she had no information at all, but wrote that he was dead as a way of invoking sympathy in her petition. Since the regiment had left New York a year before she presented her case, there was no way (that we know of) for the headquarters staff in that city to verify her claim with muster rolls or testimony from fellow soldiers.

For whatever reason, Cornelius and Mary Driscoll were separated for at least two years, and maybe forever. Her petition is a small but powerful testimony to the women who accompanied their husbands on service in America, facing unimaginable hardships for the simple sake of matrimonial loyalty.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Prisoner of War: John Buchanan, 9th Regiment of Foot

2010-10-27T10:12:00.000-07:00

The story of General John Burgoyne's ill-fated 1777 campaign is well known, for it resulted in the capitulation of a substantial British army. The prisoners of war were marched to hastily-built barracks outside of Boston, expecting to be sent back to Great Britain. Among them was a corporal in the 9th Regiment of Foot named John Buchanan. Among his comrades in the 9th were corporal Roger Lamb who chronicled the regiment's two years of campaigning in America, and corporal Samuel Reeves.

Tensions ran high between the British prisoners, the American soldiers who guarded them, and the local populace. It didn't help that the British prisoners were crowded into decrepit barracks in cold weather, had nothing to occupy their time, and were guarded by local militia who did not have the professional acumen that they were accustomed to as soldiers. Among many incidents, in December 1777 John Buchanan was confined to the guard house for insulting a local inhabitant and Samuel Reeves was confined for insulting an American officer.

On 19 December the commander of the American troops guarding the prisoners, Colonel David Henley ordered those prisoners who were confined for various infractions paraded so that he could review their cases. Buchanan, Reeves and a few other confined prisoners were brought out of the guard house. Other British soldiers gathered to see what was going on. Henley, on horseback, asked the paraded prisoners one at a time why they had been confined. Henley was already unpopular with the British prisoners because of his volatile temper, and his discourse with Reeves quickly got out of hand. Reeves said that he did not recognize the man he'd insulted as an officer, or he would not have done so. Henley called him a rascal, and Reeves retorted that he was not a rascal but a good soldier, and hoped soon to be able to prove it when free to fight again for his king and country. This so enraged Henley that he ordered a sentry to run Reeves through with his bayonet. When the sentry hesitated, Henley dismounted his horse, seized the sentry's firelock and thrust the bayonet at Reeves' breast. Buchanan grabbed the firelock, but not in time to prevent Reeves receiving a slight puncture wound. Reeves continued to argue in spite of his wound, but Buchanan and the other soldiers managed to separate him from Colonel Henley. Reeves and Buchanan were ordered back to the guard house and the other prisoners were dismissed. Buchanan was told that he would be released after writing an apology to the inhabitant that he had insulted.

Apparently Buchanan wrote the apology and was released but just a couple of weeks later, on 8 January 1778, he was attempting to cross a bridge near the prisoners' barracks when he encountered Colonel Henley and another officer. Buchanan presented a pass, but Henley examined it and determined that it was

not written for Buchanan but for another man. Henley ordered a corporal and two soldiers to take charge of Buchanan and take him to the guard house in the prison compound, setting in motion a series of events that very nearly turned riotous.

A large party of American militia was marching past the British barracks. About sixty of the British prisoners gathered to watch them march by; they crowded close to the road so that it was difficult for the American soldiers to pass. In the crowd, one British soldier inadvertently stepped on the foot of Thomas Tragget (or Tredgett) of the 24th Regiment. Tragget cried out with an epithet. One of the American soldiers, thinking that Tragget was taunting them, lunged at Tragget and stabbed him with a bayonet. As Tragget and other soldiers protested, the militia man stabbed Tragget a second time, then hit him once with the butt of his firelock. The wounds were not dangerous, and within a few days Tragget was on the mend.

Soon after, the three American guards escorting John Buchanan approached the guard house. This caught the attention a British soldier who ran over and started talking to Buchanan. Unaccountably, the guards allowed the British prisoner to walk alongside Buchanan conversing with him. Moments later, they came upon the growing crowd of prisoners that was already agitated from the stabbing of Tragget.

The British prisoners crowded around Buchanan and the three guards. As the guard party attempted to push through, a British soldier slipped beside Buchanan, and suddenly took his place as Buchanan slipped into the crown. Other prisoners held onto the coat tails of the guards, preventing them from immediate pursuit.

Attempting to follow Buchanan, the guards pushed into the crowd with charged bayonets as the British soldiers cheered. Thomas Willson of the 9th Regiment, confronted with a guard's bayonet, parried when suddenly the other guard stabbed Willson in the left side. Buchanan, though, had made good his escape.

Colonel Henley, on foot this time, led a dozen or so soldiers in to disperse the British prisoners and restore order. The soldiers loaded their firelocks and Henley ordered the British prisoners to disperse. The crowd was thick by now, and the men did not move off quickly enough to satisfy Henley; he

cursed the scattering prisoners, and in his agitation stabbed Corporal Hadley of 9th Regiment in the side with such force as to bend his sword. Henley continued to shout at the dispersing prisoners, attempting to straighten his sword while threatening to run stragglers through. Several British and American soldiers received blows and minor injuries in the confused scuffling.

The British prisoners finally cleared the area and ordered was restored. Buchanan was at large among the scattered prisoners; when an American serjeant saw him and attempted to seize him, Buchanan's comrades blocked the serjeant's way, hustled Buchanan into a barracks and blocked the door. Colonel Henley, at the advice of one of his subordinates, chose not to further pursue Buchanan but instead to ask the senior British officer present to turn Buchanan in.

British officers paraded the prisoners, an American officer identified Buchanan, and he was taken away under guard. The next day he was tried by a British regimental court martial which heard testimony from American as well as British witnesses, and the British court sentenced Buchanan to fifty lashes. The next day, however, when the punishment was to be carried out, Buchanan was pardoned and set at liberty.

With three British prisoners stabbed in a single day, along with a number of minor injuries and the incidents of the preceding weeks, Colonel Henley's treatment of the prisoners was called into question by Major General John Burgoyne. Burgoyne demanded that Henley be brought before a court martial. The court sat from 20 January to 25 February, with Burgoyne himself in the roll of prosecutor. The full proceedings of the court were published and are available here. Burgoyne delivered summaries that made full use of his literary and dramatic talents, and many incidents of the preceding months were described in detail by British and American soldiers and officers.

Unfortunately, we know no more of John Buchanan. Muster rolls were not kept for the British regiments during the time that they were in captivity. He has yet to be discovered as having escaped and joined the ranks of another British regiment, or on the lists of men receiving pensions. He may have died in captivity, escaped and settled in America, or rejoined the British army in circumstances that have yet to be determined.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Phineas Baker and Henry Drennan, 38th Regiment

2010-10-01T17:54:00.000-07:00

You can't believe everything you read in the newspapers. This guidance, familiar today, was also true in the 18th century; in fact, it may have been more true then than now. Period newspapers are outstanding sources of information filled with advertisements and notices that provide rich insight on the culture of a region, but the actual news that they contain is profoundly unreliable. Publishers relied heavily on accounts and hearsay brought to them by travelers and correspondents, and had no ability to verify (in a timely manner) much of what they published. During times of political unrest and war, exaggerated and fabricated information could be used to inflame the readership.

Captain Hugh Maginis of the 38th Regiment of Foot complained of this type of exaggerated reporting by American newspapers early in the war. In a letter to his brother in Ireland in December 1774, he wrote:

The people here and we are on bad terms, ready to cut on another’s throats. We often see here in the English papers accounts from America, not one of which contain a word of truth; they mention a great deal about the desertion from our troops, some are gone off, but not the tenth part of what they say, for our whole army, consisting of 105 companies, have not lost 120 men, although the people make use of every stratagem to make them desert, and supply them with horses and carriages to go off.

Maginis's complaint is proven legitimate by muster rolls. The ten companies in the 38th regiment had 20 desertions from the time of their arrival in Boston in June 1774 until the end of that year; they did not occur at a steady rate, but included 5 in July, 8 in September, and only one or two in each of the other months. Extrapolating to 105 companies yields a figure similar to Maginis's. Whether this was a high or low rate of desertion is a matter of perspective. It is notable that some men listed as having deserted before 19 April 1775 managed to rejoin the army later in the war and brought tales of having been coerced away or even kidnapped. It is difficult to determine whether these were factual reports or alibis designed to avoid punishment for desertion. After hostilities broke out in earnest on 19 April, desertion decreased significantly; the 38th regiment lost only 3 men to desertion from 19 April to the evacuation of Boston in March 1776. Whether the decrease was due to martial spirit or to the city being closed off from the countryside is debatable.

Continuing his thought about the local inhabitants' schemes to inveigle men away, Maginis described the exploits of two of his soldiers:

But I believe that will be a good deal stopped by the good behaviour of a young lad, a corporal in my company; he with another of the company went to a public-house, where they met some countrymen, who advised them to desert, and that they would supply them with disguises, that they might escape the easier, whereupon the corporal put on a disguise, stuffed his regimentals into one of the men’s saddle bags, and after settling their expedition, the countryman offered to take the corporal behind him, but he told him he could not ride without stirrups, so he got on the saddle, and took the countryman behind him, and set a galloping towards the nearest barrack, which, when the other observed, he leaped from behind him, and made his escape, swearing he would not wait to be shot, the corporal drove on to his own barrack with the whole prize, and no one dare to own the horse or cloaths; the corporal is thanked by the whole army, and the horse given up to him; there was no horse for the other, or he would have done the same. The corporal is one Baker, a Yorkshire-man; and the soldier’s name is Drenning a Heart of Steel from the county of Antrim.

There is one aspect of this account that casts doubt on it: the letter itself was published in a Dublin newspaper, the Hibernian Chronicle of 23 January 1775. Is this letter a piece of propaganda fabricated by the publisher or a legitimate record of an event in Boston?

It is plausible for a letter dated 14 December 1774 to have arrived in Dublin in time to have been fresh news for the 23 January 1775 newspaper, given that the journey from America to Britain was must faster than travel in the other direction. The veracity of the letter is further supported by the names that it provides, Corporal Baker and Private Drenning. The muster rolls of the 38th Regiment confirm that Phineas Baker was appointed corporal in Maginis's company on 20 August 1774, and that Henry Drennan was a private soldier in Maginis's company (variations of spelling are quite common among the names recorded on muster rolls and other documents).

The young and clever Corporal Phineas Baker whose exploit earned the praise of the army died on 17 July 1775 of wounds he received at the battle of Bunker Hill a month before. The steel-hearted Henry Drennan fared much better. The same battle that resulted in the death of his comrade created a vacancy that allowed Drennan to be appointed corporal (but not the same vacancy created by the death of Baker; Drennan was appointed only three days after the 17 June battle). Five months later he became a serjeant. When a cadre of officers and men was sent to Great Britain in December 1775 for recruiting, Serjeant Drennan was among them. He remained on this service for the entirety of the war, and took his discharge in August 1784.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Henry Pickles, 43rd Regiment of Foot

2010-09-24T07:52:00.000-07:00

Sometimes we have just enough information about a soldier to leave us wondering why there isn't more. Such is the case with Henry Pickles, private soldier in the 43rd Regiment of Foot. He was already in the regiment at the beginning of 1773, the earliest date for which we have copies of muster rolls on hand. With his regiment he came to Boston in 1774, continued on to the New York campaign in the Autumn of 1776 and then to Rhode Island at the end of that year. It was in Rhode Island that he did something so distinguished that the commander of the garrison mentioned him by name in general orders, a very rare distinction for a private soldier.

The three-year occupation of Rhode Island by British forces is largely overlooked in histories of the war because it did not have any obvious effect on the overall course of the conflict. An abortive Anglo-French attempt to retake the island sometimes gets attention because it culminated in the 29 August 1778 battle that was among the largest of the war in terms of numbers of troops involved. Otherwise one could easily get the impression that Rhode Island was a sleepy backwater bypassed by the war raging in other regions.

For the soldiers serving in the Rhode Island garrison, this was hardly the case. The British, German and Loyalist soldiers on the island were separated from their adversaries by waterways that were quite narrow in some places, and the sea-savvy New England soldiers manning the mainland posts were able to make frequent night time raids on the island. The active petit guerre caused frequent alarms and small engagements that forced the garrison to be in a constant state of vigilance.

On 21 February 1777, an American galley called the Spitfire supported a party of American troops that landed on the island, the second landing that week. The Spitfire exchanged fire with British artillery for some six hours before drawing away heavily damaged. The raiders secured a quantity of oats and hay, forage that sounds insignificant but which was important for the British garrison that was unable to receive provisions from mainland farms.

Three weeks later on the night of 13-14 March, the Spitfire was passing through the narrows at Bristol Ferry, today the site of the Mount Hope Bridge. Movements like these were usually done at nice to minimize the danger of detection by British sentries, but nighttime navigation was itself hazardous. The Spitfire ran aground. British artillery crews, supported by soldiers on temporary service with the gunners, were highly adept at rapid deployment of their field artillery pieces and had strategically positioned them where they could be moved to repel landings. The immobilized American galley presented an excellent opportunity to use this capability, and field pieces were moved to the shore to engage the Spitfire.

Realizing the hopelessness of their situation, the crew of the galley abandoned it and made for the safety of the Bristol shore. Although the vessel was now defenseless against the British artillery, the solid iron ball and shot fired by these guns could damage the ship but not destroy it completely. Being aground already, it could not be sunk. It was essential to deprive the Americans of a valuable hull that could be refitted, so complete destruction was essential. The galley had to be burned.

Rather than wait for boats to be brought to the scene (boats were scare along the shoreline, because they could too easily be used for clandestine activities), a British private soldier took action. Henry Pickles went into the water and swam to the galley. The exact location of the grounded vessel is not known, but this swim could have been as much as a half-mile in an area with significant currents. We also do not know whether Pickles set fire to the galley himself, or brought a line that was used to haul it closer to the British shore. Either way, the Spitfire was consumed by fire and completely destroyed.

The next day, general orders given to the garrison read as follows:

Lord Percy thanks Captain Brady and the British Artillery that destroyed the Rebel Galley yesterday. He also desires that Henry Pickles, Private soldier in his Majestys 43d Regiment may be informed that he is extreamly pleased with his spirited conduct, in Swiming on Board the Galley

For a soldier to be named in orders promulgated to the entire garrison was extremely unusual. It did not, however, mean that Henry Pickles' was destined for a remarkable future in the army; in fact, we know very little more about him except what the muster rolls tell us.

He was transferred to the light infantry company of the 43rd Regiment at the end of 1777, which shows that he was a spirited and active soldier. For reasons unknown, he was soon transferred back to the battalion, so soon that he never actually appears on the rolls of the light company. This could have been for health reasons, or because the battalion wished to retain him for some reason (at this time, the light infantry company was in Philadelphia while the battalion was in Rhode Island). At the end of 1779, after Rhode Island was evacuated and the entirety of the 43rd Regiment was in the New York area, Pickles was again transferred to the light infantry. This assignment took him on several expeditions to the southward including the siege of Charleston, South Carolina and the campaign led by Benedict Arnold around Petersburg, Virginia. It also took him to Yorktown, Virginia in 1781 where he became a prisoner of war along with the rest of the British forces under General Cornwallis.

The final annotation concerning Henry Pickles is deceptive; he is listed as having deserted on 1 July 1783. A peace treaty had been signed, and prisoners of war were repatriated. British prisoners were given the opportunity to join the British garrison in New York, but many failed to arrive. As an administrative expedient, all of the prisoners whose fate was unknown were written off on the muster rolls as deserters. Henry Pickles may have settled in America, he may died in captivity or as a escapee, or he could have made his way to a British garrison in Canada or the West Indies and joined another regiment without this information having made its way back to New York. The actual fate of this soldier who had one day of distinction remains unknown.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Employed soldier: Joseph Harrison, 22nd Regiment

2010-09-09T19:45:00.000-07:00

A reader asked, if the army was able to employ soldiers such as John Hopwood the butcher, tailors John Watkins and Patrick Lenahan, and bakers William Bayliss and John Lewis, then why were there soldiers competing with civilians for jobs in Boston in 1769 and 1770, contributing to the unrest that culminated in the Boston Massacre? This is a good question. We don't have a definitive answer, but the best guess is that the army did not have enough jobs available to accommodate all of the soldiers who were willing and able to work.

Military books of the era made recommendations to officers about conditions under which soldiers should be allowed to work outside of the army. The popular work "A System for the Compleat Interior Management and Economy of a Battalion of Infantry" by Bennett Cuthbertson includes a chapter on the subject offering the guidance that non-military jobs must not interfere with a soldier's duties and that the soldier was not to work in his uniform. Especially clear from the recommendations is that it was normal and expected for soldiers to have second jobs when circumstances allowed it - not unlike today's military.

This adds an interesting and overlooked dimension to the subject of a soldier's pay. Much is made in literature of the meager pay of 8 pence per day, from which stoppages were made to pay for food, clothing, medical care and other amenities. This pay, however, should be viewed not as the soldier's sole earning potential, but as his base pay. We have seen examples of soldiers with trades being able to work for the army and will see more in future installments. Soldiers without trades also were given opportunities to work at military projects such as building roads, preparing and maintaining fortifications, cutting work, and numerous other activities.

How much could a soldier earn at a military job? An excellent and striking example is Joseph Harrison, a soldier in the 22nd Regiment of Foot. Born in 1736, he had acquired no skilled trade by the time he joined the army in 1755. By 1782 he was a corporal.

For a period of 35 days in May and June 1782, he was among 7 men of the 22nd Regiment who, along with 7 men of the New Jersey Volunteers, worked on a boat a Paulus Hook, a British outpost of the New York garrison on the shore of New Jersey. The work these men did is not specified in the document that enumerates how they were paid, but the amount of money that they earned is significant. Each man earned 4 shillings per day, six times the base pay of a common soldier. Harrison and the other men of the 22nd Regiment each worked 18 days, and each earned a total of 3 pounds 12 shillings. This was equivalent to about four month's pay, and unlike the base wage there were no stoppages from it - it was all 'take home' pay.

Joseph Harrison was discharged after the regiment returned to Great Britain in early 1784, and received a pension. The pension rolls mention that he had a "Wounded left eye" but it is not known when or under what circumstances he received the wound.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Employed soldier: John Hopwood, 54th Regiment

2010-07-29T12:05:00.000-07:00

Before presenting the brief story of a working soldier, let's take a moment to address a question related to our previous post on army widows. We have data that proves that some widows did not remarry immediately, but remained with their regiments and remarried a year or more later. Several people asked what these women did in the mean time that allowed them to remain affiliated with the army. I don't have an answer based on knowledge of any specific woman's career, but a likely answer can be deduced from information in my article on army women. Soldiers' wives were entitled to receive rations from the army, but not all wives were dependent upon those rations. We have direct information that some nurses drew rations through army hospitals, for example. It is also clear that women 'earned their bread' by working as sutlers and laundresses for the army, or by finding work outside of the army. Presumably, then, if a woman was in an established position and earning her own subsistence when her husband died there was no reason for the army to oust her just because she was a widow.

Soldiers, as we know, were also often employed by the army for duties other than the usual routine of carrying a musket. One such man was John Hopwood of the 54th Regiment of Foot. The native of Hutton, Yorkshire was born in 1743; he was discharged from the army in 1792 after 21 years of service, but we do not know whether this service was continuous; we do know that he joined the 54th Regiment before 1775 and served in it for the remainder of his career. If his entire career was in the 54th Regiment and was continuous, then he joined the army at the age of 28 - older than usual, but by no means unprecedented.

In an era where employment often began very young but military service did not usually begin until a young man had finished growing, some time in the late teens, most men had worked at some trade or another before becoming soldiers. John Hopwood was a butcher by profession. A statement on his discharge reveals that he worked in this capacity for the army and also reveals one of the many hazards that a career soldier faced. Hopwood had

lost the use of the two first fingers of his right hand occasioned by an accident when killing cattle for the use of the army in Septr 1778

This accident most likely occurred a few years later than the date written on the discharge. The muster rolls of the 54th Regiment show that James Hopwood was in the light infantry company of the regiment in 1778. The regiment was in Rhode Island from December 1776 through the middle of 1779, and unlike most regiments the light infantry and grenadier companies of the 54th remained with their regiment and were also in Rhode Island (operationally they were detached from the 54th, but they remained part of the Rhode Island garrison). Nothing in the muster rolls suggests that Hopwood was away from his company during this time.

The regiment served in the New York area for the remainder of the war, participating in the storming of Fort Griswold in Connecticut in September 1781, before removing to Canada in late 1783. Hopwood may have lost his fingers at any time during this garrison period. He was transferred from the light infantry into a battalion company in 1782, a common practice when a man was no longer in suitable physical condition to serve in a flank company; perhaps this transfer was the result of his accident. It is also possible that the discharge has the incorrect place, rather than date, of the accident.

John Hopwood put an X mark on his discharge rather than signing his own name. About 60% of the soldiers whos discharges survive signed their names, in spite of the conjecture that most soldiers were illiterate. In Hopwood's case, we don't know if was unable to write because of a lack of education or the loss of his fingers.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Army Wives: The Remarriage Myth Dispelled

2010-07-17T17:23:00.000-07:00

A favorite topic of mine is wives of British soldiers. Information on these women who formed an integral part of the British army in America is sparse. While the names of soldiers can be readily obtained from muster rolls and other sources provide details of their ages, backgrounds and other attributes, just learning which men were married and the names of their wives is challenging. I've been able to pull together significant information about their role in the army, but learning about the individuals remains difficult.

With this paucity of information, it is especially annoying when people propagate information that has no basis in actual research. One such 'nugget' is the notion that wives who became widows were required to remarry within days or they would be cast out of the army and left completely on their own where ever they happened to be. I've heard this repeated many times, but never seen it backed up by information from general orders, military texts, personal accounts, or any other first-hand information. Although it is true that women had to be married to soldiers in order to become part of the 'regimental community', it is contradictory to the spirit of community to suppose that widows would be cast out. Over time, direct information made the remarriage assertion less and less plausible - for example, orders directing that widows who wished to return to Great Britain would be provided passage on board transport ships - but the absence of supporting information does not directly prove that remarriage was a requirement or necessity.

It is pleasing, then, to have finally obtained specific information about several army wives whose husbands died and who then married other soldiers. Regimental muster rolls provide us with the dates that the men died. A collection of marriage licenses issued in New York City gives the date that the widows obtained license to remarry (presumably close to the date of the actual marriage). Just enough of these marriage licenses are specific about the regiments to which the men and women belonged to make it possible to associate the names of some of the women to men in the same regiments who had died. They are in Volume 46 of the New York Genealogical and Biographical Record (1915), available on Google Books.

The first example we found, about a year ago, was Hester Foster of the 22nd Regiment of Foot. Her husband William died as a serjeant on 14 October 1780 in New York after a career of at least 14 years in the army. On 18 December 1780 she obtained a license to marry a 31-year-old serjeant in the regiment, Henry Vennel. A decade later he became a rare man who obtained an officer's commission after rising through the ranks from a private soldier.

This example of a woman who remarried just two months after losing her husband was weak proof that women were not required to remarry immediately. Although two months is much longer than the 24 to 72 hours generally purported as the required time limit (depending upon who told the story) it is nonetheless a fast turnaround. More information was required to get a better sense of typical practice. That information has finally come together.

Noted author Brendan Morrissey recently worked extensively with the muster rolls of the 23rd Regiment of Foot. These rolls record the death of Thomas Pearcy on 31 May 1776 when the army was in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Over two years later a marriage license was obtained by Elenor Percy, widow in the 23rd Regiment, to marry a soldier named William Rider. Variations in spelling of surnames is quite common in muster rolls and related documents, and no other soldier in the 23rd had a name close enough to reasonably have been the husband of Elenor Percy. Sadly, her new husband died in June of 1780 and we have no additional information about her.

My own recent trip to the National Archives afforded the opportunity to piece together three more examples:

Daniel Rogers, a grenadier in the 38th Regiment, died on 19 August 1775 of wounds received at the battle of Bunker Hill. Catherine Rogers, widow of the same regiment, obtained a license to marry Thomas Mason of the 38th on 2 May 1777. Mason was still in the regiment in 1783, but a gap in the muster rolls makes his ultimate fate unknown.

Richard Twine of the 54th Regiment died on 21 August 1776. His wife Ann obtained a license exactly one year later to marry a soldier in the 45th Regiment, James Wiggins. He was drafted into the 5th Regiment of Foot in 1778 when the 45th was sent back to Great Britain and the 5th to the West Indies. A gap in the rolls of the 5th from late 1778 to the beginning of 1781 leaves his fate (and hers) unknown.

Thomas Proffit of the 7th (Royal Fusiliers) Regiment died on 17 April 1777. His wife Ann obtained a license on 6 February 1779 to marry serjeant John Lomix (or Lomax) of the same regiment. He died on 28 July 1782, leaving Ann once again a widow.

Among the marriage licenses are several others that can be traced in this way when we have an opportunity to work with the muster rolls of more regiments. For now, we have these four examples of women who were widowed and then remarried a year or more later, where the marriage license information explicitly refers to them as widows belonging to their regiments. A fifth woman married within only two months. We have yet to find an example of a woman remarrying within days of losing her husband. This doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it certainly proves that it was not a requirement.

Besides putting to reset the remarriage myth, the marriage licenses open up a new mystery. Among the women named as affiliated with British regiments are four who are not called widows but 'spinsters.' My first supposition was that these women were daughters of soldiers in the regiment, but we have not been able to correlate their names with any men on the muster rolls. It may be necessary to track down the original marriage license information to fully understand this nomenclature and determine who these women actually were.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

John Harvey, Musician, 22nd Regiment of Foot

2010-07-08T14:20:00.000-07:00

About three weeks ago I gave a talk at the commemoration of the Battle of Monmouth on 28 June 1778. The talk concerned the 60 men who were in the grenadier company of the 22nd Regiment of Foot at the time of the battle. Included was an overview of known trades practiced by men before they joined the army (and in some cases, continued during their military service). Out of 1005 men known to have served in the 22nd Regiment in America for some time between 1775 and 1783, at the time of the talk I was able to learn the trades of 311. Another post later on will present this information; for now, suffice it to say that the trades consist of a variety of occupations including weavers, tailors, shoemakers, laborers, carpenters and a wide assortment of others.

A person in the audience asked an interesting question: why were there no artists (including musicians, actors and such) on the list. While I don't have a certain answer and don't pretend to have background in the sociology of the era, I can make several guesses:

Professional artists are only a small portion of any population. Our data sample of only 311 out of 1005 is too small to draw any conclusions either about the 22nd Regiment (there could have been some artists who aren't among the 311 whose trades we know) or the army as a whole (an estimated 50,000 British regular soldiers served in America; there could've been a few artists in some regiments but not in others).

The army was a volunteer force, and many of the men who joined it were men who could not find work in their trades or were not interested in their trades. While not composed primarily of the 'dregs of society', the army was composed largely of working class people. It may be that artists who could not find work simply were not inclined to join the army as an alternative.

Most of our information on trades comes from army discharge documents and deserter descriptions. Possibly the army did not recognize artistic disciplines as trades, and used the more common catchall of 'labourer' for people who had not been apprenticed in a recognized trade.

These are just guesses, of course. If we look outside the scope of the 22nd Regiment, we do fine some interesting characters. A deserter from the South Fencible Regiment, a corps raised during the American war for service only in Scotland, was advertised in Edinburgh in 1780:

Desertion.

Deserted from his Majesty's South Fencible Regiment, quartered at Dumfries, on Friday Feb. 25, 1780, Hector M'Lean, private soldier, born in Glasgow, 25 years of age, 5 feet 4 inches high, fair complexion, fair hair, grey eyes, and a little long chin'd, stout made, and walks very upright, by trade a comb maker; had on when he deserted the regimentals of the light company of the above regiment. He was formerly employed as a tumbler to a company of Stirling players, and is well known about Edinburgh and Kendal in Westmoreland: and it is supposed when he left the regiment he took the English road.
Whoever can secure the said deserter in any jail shall be entitled to Two Guineas reward, over and above what is allowed by act of parliament for apprehending deserters, and that immediately on giving notice to the commanding officer at Dumfries.

[Edinburgh Advertiser, 7 March 1780]

This man was known to have worked as a performer, but also had a more common trade. Similar were performers in the regimental bands of the 1st and 2nd Regiments of Foot, each of whom had trades in addition to their musical abilities:

Deserted from the Second Battalion of His Majesty’s First (or Royal) Regiment of Foot, commanded by his Grace the Duke of Argyle, Lieutenant-general, quartered at Fort George in the County of Inverness, William Sutherland, Five feet 10 inches high, aged 25 years, fresh complexion, dark brown hair, black eyes, had on a scarlet frock, white waistcoat and breeches, by trade a Shoemaker, was one of the Band of Music, born in the town and county of Wicklow, inlisted at Fort Augustus, in the county of Inverness, the 16th of July, 1767. Deserted from Fort George, in said county, the 18th of March, 1777.
Whoever secures the said Deserter, so that he may be brought to justice, as a perjured Defrauder of the Public, of his Colonel, any of his Officers, and given notice to the Commanding Officer of th esaid Regiment at Fort George, or to Messrs. Ross and Gray, Agents to the said Regiment, in London, shall receive Five Guineas over and above the Twenty Shillings allowed by Act of Parliament.
N. B. It is supposed the above Deserter is lurking about London or St. Albans.

[London Chronicle, April 14, 1777]

Deserted from the Queen’s Royal Regiment of Foot, at Coxheath Camp, Samuel Pollard, Musician, aged 22, five feet six inches high, of a fresh Complexion, full faced, red Hair, Haxle Eyes, well made, born in Birstal, in the County of York, by Occupation a Labourer, and had on when he deserted, a white Coat, looped with Blue and Silver, white Waistcoat and Breeches, and a Silver laced Hat. Whoever secures the above Deserter, so as he may be brought to Justice, shall have two Guineas over and above the Reward allowed by Act of Parliament.

[The Daily Advertiser (London), 26 October 1778]

Other musicians were described as such:

Deserted from his Majesty’s 17th regiment of foot, quartered in Perth, John Humphreys musician, aged twenty years, size five feet six inches one-half, very swarthy complexion and jet black hair, black eyes, hollow cheeks, has a stoop in his shoulders, slender bandy limbed, has a very hoarse voice, talks thick, plays well on the French horn and fife; had on when he deserted the musician’s uniform of the regiment, viz. a scarlet frock, with white cap [sic - cape] and cuffs laced with silver, with white buttons having the number of the regiment, white cloth waistcoat and breeches, silver laced hat. He was apprehended (but escaped) on Wednesday the 7th in the Canongate; had on a bonnet, black coat, and wore a long staff in his hand.
Whoever apprehends the said deserter, sends him to the regiment, or secures him in any of his Majesty’s gaols, shall, upon giving information thereof to the commanding officer of the regiment at Perth, receive One Guinea reward over and above twenty shillings allowed by act of parliament; to be paid by Col. Darby commanding at Perth, Capt. Lyons at Aberdeen, Capt. Wallace at Montrose, Ensign Sir Alexander Murray at Banf, Ensign Browne at Dundee, or Capt. Aylmer at Edinburgh.

[Edinburgh Advertiser, 9 October 1772]

Yet another musician with the interesting trade of Horse Jockey can be seen in one of our earlier posts.

The week after the talk I was in the London at the National Archives, hoping to find more demographic data about soldiers in the 22nd Regiment. A recently-indexed collection of discharge documents promised to provide information on several soldiers who had previously been identifiable only by their names on muster rolls. Among them was James Harvey, a man born in 1753 in the parish of Crediton near the middle of Devonshire. He enlisted in the 22nd Regiment at the slightly young age of 16 and served for 25 years in the regiment, followed by additional time in the Tipperary Militia in Ireland. While the regiment was serving in the New York area in 1782 Harvey was Master of Masonic Lodge No. 133, a lodge formed in 1767 consisting of members of the regiment. He spent most of his time as a private soldier but also spent a few years as a corporal (the muster rolls show him in this post for three years, but his discharge records only two) and three years as a drummer. He signed his own name on his discharge, suggesting that he was literate, and a note on the document refers to his "good character." Most significant to our understanding of trades in the 22nd Regiment, however, was the trade listed on James Harvey's discharge: Musician.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

James Cuffe, 62nd and 22nd Regiments

2010-06-15T11:39:00.000-07:00

Our previous installment mentioned that Augustus Barrett deserted from the American army near New Bridge in New Jersey. This location today is a historic site well worth visiting, showcasing several beautifully restored buildings and pleasing waterfront in a location that was on the front lines during much of the American Revolution.

The installment also mentioned James Cuffe who deserted with Barrett. Cuffe's career in the British army was similar in many ways to Barrett's in that Cuffe was also a soldier from Burgoyne's army who escaped captivity, joined the Continental army, then deserted and made his way into New York. It is not surprising, though, that Cuffe's story was also distinctive in many ways.

James Cuffe was an Irishman and a barber by trade. He joined the 62nd Regiment of Foot at Cork, Ireland in May 1774. Although we can hardly deduce a man's personality based on scant military records, the evidence suggests that Cuffe was more flamboyant that we might expect for a barber. When he joined the 62nd Regiment he was put directly into the grenadier company, a highly unusual posting for a new soldier. It was rare for a man with less than a year in a regiment to serve in the grenadier company (or in the light infantry company). Cuffe may have had prior military experience, he may have had remarkably fine stature and taken quickly to the profession of arms, or it may be that the grenadier company needed a barber.

Cuffe deserted from the regiment on 3 November 1775. We have no information on the circumstances of his desertion and no advertisement for him has been found. He did, however, return to the regiment some time between February and April of the following year, and went back onto the rolls of the grenadier company. Just as we don't know why he deserted, we do not know if he returned voluntarily or was apprehended. He embarked with his regiment for Canada, arriving at Quebec in May 1776.

The next mention we have of Cuffe is from an orderly book pertaining to the grenadier battalion in Burgoyne's army in early 1777. Orders dated Boucherville, 4 March 1777, begin with this interesting entry:

James Cuff of the 62d Compy confined and [blank] for being Drunk and Striking Copl. Maher of the said Compy is Acquitted by the Court-Martial, the Major willing to do equal Justice to every rank finds

Unfortunately this is at the end of the last surviving page of the orderly book. Neither the rest of the order nor the circumstances surrounding Cuffe's crime, trial and acquittal are known.

Cuffe was among the soldiers imprisoned when Burgoyne's army capitulated at Saratoga in October 1777. His subsequent actions are chronicled in two places: his own deposition given to British officers in 1782, and in American army service records. In some ways the two sources are in agreement, while in other ways they differ.

Cuffe left the British prisoner of war barracks on Prospect Hill outside of Boston on 8 February 1778. He claims to have worked as a barber for the next year or so, but pay accounts and muster rolls for Colonel Henry Jackson's Massachusetts Regiment show him to have been a soldier in that regiment from 11 February 1778 through 31 December 1779. He served primarily on mainland Rhode Island keeping watch over the British garrison on the island portion of that colony, a garrison which included the 22nd Regiment of Foot.

He claimed that, after working as a barber, he enlisted in the "Boston Rebel Regt." with the intention of getting close to British lines in order to desert, but that he and 20 other British soldiers were instead put in jail in Easton, Pennsylvania. After three months he and another soldier broke out of jail but were apprehended and confined again, this time in Philadelphia. He was sent to Providence, Rhode Island and tried as a deserter, for which he received 100 lashes.

America service records do indicate that Cuffe deserted on 29 May 1779 and was retaken on 17 October. Whether that period of desertion corresponds to his claim of confinement is difficult to say. It is clear that he was in the 16th Massachusetts Regiment from 1 January into September of 1780. On 11 September he and Augustus Barrett received passes to "go into the Country for Provisions." They took the opportunity to desert between Paramus and New Bridge, made their way to a British ship in the Hudson River, and from there to British headquarters in New York. Cuffe gave a brief deposition at headquarters recounting their escape and describing what he knew of American positions. He and Barrett then joined the 22nd Regiment of Foot in New York, serving with some of the very soldiers they had been posted against while in Rhode Island.

Unlike Barrett who deserted in America, James Cuffe remained with the 22nd Regiment through the close of the war. The 22nd was among the last regiments to embark from New York in November 1783 and returned directly to Great Britain. Many soldiers were discharged in the first half of 1784 but Cuffe was not among them. Instead, he deserted on 28 June while the regiment was stationed in the London area.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Augustus Barret, 24th and 22nd Regiments

2010-05-28T12:26:00.000-07:00

The American War saw several instances of British regiments being surrendered as entities to Continental forces. The two principal examples are the regiments of Burgoyne’s army at Saratoga in October 1777 and those of Cornwallis’s army at Yorktown in October 1781. Unlike individuals who were taken prisoner, soldiers in these regiments remained under the care of their officers and in the service of their regiments, albeit in captivity. Many of these men nonetheless escaped and attempted to make their way to British garrisons in New York, Canada or Rhode Island; considerable numbers were successful. Because these men left their regiments they technically were deserters. For the most part, however, these desertions were sanctioned and the repatriated soldiers were allowed to join other regiments. The most famous of these was Roger Lamb, originally of the 9th and later of the 23rd Regiment, well-known because he later published the details of his escapes.

Many other escaped prisoners told their stories in the form of depositions given to a board of inquiry that sat in New York in 1782. These soldiers, having rejoined the army, considered their time as fugitives to have been part of their military service; fully aware of their entitlements, each man set forth his claim for arrears of pay and clothing due not only from the time before escaping incarceration, but also for the time between that escape and being added to the rolls of another British regiment. Records of their testimonies are brief but concise, usually with exact dates of their departure from captivity and arrival in New York, dates which could be translated into days of service and therefore into wages due.

One of these petitioners was Augustus (or Augustine) Barrett, formerly a soldier in the light infantry company of the 24th Regiment of Foot. He was among the first deserters from the Burgoyne's incarcerated army when he left the barracks at Prospect Hill outside of Boston on 13 November 1777. Barrett deposed that he was captured five weeks after his escape and

...confined in the Prison Ship at Boston where he continued between 5 & six Months, & from thence enlisted in Col. Jackson’s Regt. in the Rebel service; that he remained in this Regt. about 18 Months...

In September 1780 while serving in northern New Jersey Barrett and some other men were given passes to go into the country to seek provisions in the area between Paramus and New Bridge. Barrett and another Convention Army deserter, James Cuffe, took the opportunity to desert and make their way to the Hudson river. There they were able to get on board a British ship and then make their way to New York City. They joined the 22nd Regiment of Foot on 14 September, three days after deserting the Continental army.

Barrett petitioned for clothing (or the value thereof) that he was owed by the 24th Regiment, plus pay for the time between deserting the barracks at Prospect Hill and joining the 16th Massachusetts Regiment. He duly noted that "that he received pay & clothing from the Rebels, whilst he served them" and therefore did not make any claim for compensation during this time period. Barrett’s story was reasonably typical of those heard by the board; many petitioners freely admitted to service in the American army and astutely did not claim pay for the duration of that service. The board of inquiry approved Barrett's claim and many others like it.

The British officers on the board of inquiry, however, did not have access to Continental army documents that tell a somewhat different story of Barrett’s service. Contrary to his claim of spending five weeks as a fugitive followed by six months of incarceration on a prison ship, Barrett started drawing pay in the American army on 14 November 1777 – one day after he left the prisoner of war barracks outside Boston. Exactly one year later he was appointed corporal. In August 1779 he deserted but returned in October, when he was reduced to a private soldier.

The rolls for the 16th Massachusetts Regiment indicate Barrett's desertion on 11 September 1780 which agrees with his deposition and correlates to the muster rolls of the British regiment that he joined in New York. Barrett’s Continental service record suggests that he was encouraged to enlist while still a prisoner as a way to gain release from captivity. While the British board of inquiry may have accepted this as a motive to escape from a prison ship, they certainly would not have looked favorably on a man leaving the frail barracks in which so many other British soldiers endured the winter.

A Continental army roll from October 1779, the time of his return from a two-month desertion, exposes another facet of Barrett’s life. An note on the roll says that he had his “family in camp.” It is possible that Barrett was married while in the 24th Regiment, and that his wife either escaped with him or made her own way to Boston from Canada. It is more likely that Barrett married an American woman after his escape from the Convention Army, as some of these soldiers are known to have done. This supposition might explain the closure to his service as a British soldier: he deserted from the 22nd Regiment on 7 June 1783, a time when it was clear that the British army would soon be leaving the newly-created United States for posts in Great Britain and Canada. Although a wife and children would be allowed to travel with him as part of the British army, if they were American-born they may have compelled him to stay. Regardless of his motive for leaving Continental service and returning to the British army, a family in America may have provided Augustus Barrett's incentive to ultimately remain on the continent.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Lance Corporal John Lee, Brigade of Guards

2010-05-20T20:22:00.000-07:00

We welcome your comments, questions and observations on these blog posts. A comment to our previous installment about Corporal John McChesnie brings up several interesting points. The observation that "Some English officers weren't always the calm, collected bunch they wished to portray..." is certainly true. Think of any professional organization where the entry-level people are in their late teens and early twenties - some are focused on learning and making the best impression possible, while others are cocky, headstrong and act with a sense of entitlement. Among British officers there were all sorts of personalities, from the reserved to the arrogant.

It is also important to note that this was the British army, not the English army. Lt. John Wallace of the 22nd Regiment was Irish; Corporal McChesnie was Scottish. The British army included many officers and soldiers from England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, as well as a smattering from America and from various European countries. In general this multinational group functioned well, but occasionally language and national pride became issues.

The comment goes on to say "...quite a few veteran soldiers were being outranked by more colorful men half their age." True enough, but this is the reality in most professional armies even today. Regardless of the factors that allow men to choose their paths, some men begin their careers as officers while others serve their entire careers in the ranks. Even today many soldiers are commanded by officers barely half their age, with varying results depending upon the personalities involved and the quality of training.

And the comment includes a question: "Do you know what prompted the Light Dragoons into a scuffle against the lieutenants in the first place?" Sadly, the court martial proceedings that give us our information on these events give no details about the scuffle that initiated things. The dragoons escaped into the night and apparently no attempt was made to identify them. Altercations between officers and soldiers (and between officers and other officers) happened from time to time, particularly in garrison towns when there was much idle time. Darkness and alcohol were often a factor. When these misadventures led to courts martial, the testimony often illustrate the confusion and uncertainly of the events themselves. Thanks to the research of Linnea Bass we have a good example in the case of another soldier of the Brigade of Guards, John Lee.

In January 1779, Lee was a lance corporal in the brigade. This meant that he was officially a private soldier, but was doing the duty of a corporal for the time being and was to be recognized as such. On the night of 15 January he was in a house being used as a barracks on Dock Street in New York City duly washing one of his shirts. Suddenly the sentry posted outside the barracks came to the door and called for help because someone had been knocked down in the street. Lee and two other soldiers went out into the dark night, where they saw a man writhing on the ground across the street and another man standing over him. Acting quickly, Lee ran over and pushed the standing man away, asking him what he intended to do to the stricken man. The pushed man lunged back at Lee, grabbing his collar with one hand and sinking his fingernails into Lee's cheek with the other. Lee demanded that he desist or be struck, and pushed the assailant away. The man lunged back; they struggled and exchanged harsh language. Soldiers poured out of the barracks, civilians poured out of houses, and several officers walking in the area rushed to the scene. The sentry who had originally called for help managed to separate the two.

As if there were not already enough people in the street, the relief guard (that is, a party of soldiers on guard duty) came up to relieve the sentry. The first person they encountered was Lee, who was bleeding and complaining of having been assaulted. Just then his assailant came up, seized him by the collar and called him the rascal who assaulted him. The man was Lieutenant Edmund Prideaux of the 7th Regiment of Foot, known as the Royal Fusiliers.

This was profoundly unfortunate for Lance Corporal Lee, for he had unwittingly assaulted an officer. Lt. Prideaux was still highly agitated, but other officers who were now on the scene advised him to have Lee confined. Lt. Prideaux attempted to write down a charge to be delivered with Lee to the provost guard, but was unable to collect himself enough to do so. The other officers took over the formalities. They went into the barracks to collect Lee (who had gone back inside) and get names of other soldiers who may have struck or insulted Lt. Prideaux. Although the soldiers in the barracks were insolent, they begrudgingly complied with what was demanded of them. John Lee surrendered himself angrily, insisting that he had done nothing wrong, and was put into confinement. People in the street took the stricken man - who proved to be an officer of a Loyalist regiment - into a house to attend to him. The disturbance was over.

The court martial of John Lee occurred a week later. Lt. Prideaux testified that he was assisting the Loyalist officer (a colleague in a regiment that Prideaux himself had recently served in) to get home because he was very drunk. When they happened to be opposite the Dock Street barracks, by chance the drunken officer collapsed in a fit. Lt. Prideaux called to the nearby sentry for help and water, the sentry called forth men from the barracks, but Lt. Prideaux was stunned when instead of receiving help he was pushed away.

Prideaux called five witnesses including a soldier who had been helping him to escort his comrade, a local resident and another soldier who saw the initial struggle, and two officers who came up as the events unfolded (or unraveled). Lee called seven witnesses including the sentry, other soldiers and non-commissioned officers who had been in the barracks, an officer who arrived late on the scene and the regimental surgeon who had attended to his wounds. The disagreements in the testimony are striking: those who testified for Prideaux insisted that he was sober while those who spoke for Lee said that he was in a drunken rage; some said that Lee struck Prideaux, some that he did not, while others could not say one way or the other. They all agreed that the night was dark enough that it was not immediately obvious that Prideaux was an officer, but some stated that he wore a blue great coat while others said he was in his regimental coat, red with blue facings (it is possible that Prideaux had been wearing the great coat initially, and shed it when the struggle ended).

Lance Corporal Lee made a good argument that he acted as the situation seemed to warrant when he pushed Lt. Prideaux, and after that acted only in his own defense. Three officers of the Brigade of Guards gave him excellent character references, stating that this was the first complaint that they had received about Lee and calling him a "clean, regular and obedient soldier," "as good a Soldier as any in the British Army," whose "particular good behavior" had led to his recommendation for lance corporal. He was nonetheless found guilty and sentenced to receive one thousand lashes. We do not know whether the punishment was actually inflicted.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Thomas McChesnie and Joseph Mauncey, Brigade of Guards

2010-05-08T16:40:00.000-07:00

Thomas McChesnie was out for a walk one night with his colleague Joseph Mouncey in British-garrisoned New York city. The two were volunteer soldiers in more than one sense. During the era of the American Revolution the British army was, for the most part, a volunteer force - men enlisted for a career in the army, and there was (with a few exceptions) no impressment or compulsory service. McChesnie, born in county Galloway in Scotland in 1738, had left his trade as a weaver to join the 3rd Regiment of Foot Guards at the age of 21; Mouncey, born in St. Marlybone, London, had not learned a trade when he enlisted in the 1st Regiment of Foot Guards at 17 years of age in 1773.

The outbreak of war in America brought them a second opportunity to volunteer. Besides the regiments of the regular army sent to America, a composite corps was formed of volunteer soldiers from the three regiments of Foot Guards that traditionally provided security for the monarchy and government in London. 15 volunteers were drawn from the private soldiers in each of the 64 companies that comprised the Guards regiments, in addition to officers, non-commissioned officers, drummers and fifers. This detachment operated in America as the Brigade of Guards; it included a grenadier company composed of soldiers from all three of the Foot Guards regiments. McChesnie and Mouncey were both corporals in this company. On the night of 1 August 1779 they were making their way through the dark streets of old New York after a walk on the Battery at the south end of Manhattan island.

Also out for a walk that night were two young officers, Lieutenants John Wallace of the 22nd Regiment of Foot and James Drury of the 57th Regiment of Foot. They were walking towards the Battery between 9 and 10 o'clock when they parted company with each other. Moments later, Lt. Wallace heard a commotion. He drew his sword and ran to the noise where he found Lt. Drury struggling with two soldiers of the 17th Light Dragoons. The dragoons had hold of Drury, but released him after receiving several strokes from the flat of Wallace's sword; the two officers secured the dragoons and set off towards the provost with them.

This is when the two corporals met up with the two officers. Apparently there were other soldiers hovering in the darkness, perhaps drawn by the commotion, because the officer perceived that they had encountered a party of about 10 grenadiers. Lt. Drury directed the soldiers to take custody of the two dragoons and take them to the main guard. McChesnie, a with nearly 20 years in the army, responded that he could not take them without first getting their names and the charges against them; without this information the guard would not receive them. The officers, already agitated from their scuffle with the dragoons, viewed this as a flippant response. Wallace (who, it bears noting, was 19 years old; Drury was probably only a few years older) told McChesnie that he and the Brigade of Guards were rebellious rascals and, gesturing with his sword, threatened to imprison McChesnie if he did not comply with orders. McChesnie snatched the sword from Wallace's hand and responded that he would not be taken prisoner. Drury seized McChesnie by his bayonet belt and demanded his name, which McChensie readily gave. Wallace, in the mean time, moved behind McChesnie, grabbed the sword again and wrested it free. More threatening words were exchanged. Wallace asked for help from another soldier who not only refused but drew his bayonet. McChesnie's bayonet belt gave way. A scuffle ensued in which the officers received blows, but within moments all of the soldiers cleared off into the night leaving the two officers with only McChesnie's bayonet belt, an unidentified hat, and extremely wounded pride.

The young lieutenants took the belt to the commander of the Brigade of Guards who were able to trace it to McChesnie. The long-serving corporal was brought before a general court martial the following week on charges of abusing the officers and threatening Lt. Drury's life. The officers gave their version of the story, characterizing McChesnie as drunk and insolent, while Mouncey corroborated McChensie's testimony that they were sober and compliant, but that the officers became belligerent when asked for necessary information. An officer gave a favorable character witness. In a "his word against mine" situation like this a court composed of army officers had little choice but to find in favor of one of their own. Corporal McChensie was sentence to be reduced to the ranks and receive 1000 lashes.

Thomas McChesney continued his career as a soldier. After being discharged from the Foot Guards he served in several garrison corps in Great Britain, taking his final discharge in 1796 at the age of 58. Joseph Mauncey also stayed in the army, remaining the 1st Regiment of Foot Guards until 1787. Both received pensions.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Trial of William Johnstone, 43rd Regiment of Foot

2010-05-03T09:00:00.000-07:00

Having explained some details about the source material used for these posts, it is fitting to present the proceedings of a general court martial. The text below is transcribed from a copy of the original manuscript. This is typical of the 'raw' data used to tell the many of the stories related in these pages. Some of the formatting of the original is difficult to render on a web page, particular indentations and the layout of the list of court members, but all of the information in the manuscript is shown.

Perhaps the only surprise in this case is that the soldier on trial was found completely innocent; presumably this was because there was no direct evidence that he had committed a crime, even though the circumstantial evidence weighed strongly against him. Clearly the commander in chief was of the same opinion, because he did not approve of the sentence even though he opted to confirm it.

At a General Court Martial held at the Head of Elk, in the Province of Maryland, on Friday the 29th of August 1777, by Virtue of a Warrant, bearing date the same day, from His Excellency Sir William Howe, Knight of the most Honourable order of the Bath, General and Commander in Chief of all His Majesty’s Forces within the Colonies, laying on the Atlantic Ocean, from Nova Scotia to West Florida inclusive &c, &c, &c.

Lieutenant Colonel Henry Trelawney, Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards, President.

Lieut. Col. William Walcot, 5th Foot
Lieut. Col. Jas. Ogilvie, 4th Foot
Capt. John Swint. Dyer Coldstream Guards
Capt. Thos. Thomlinson, 5th Foot
Capt. John Barker, 10th Foot
Capt. John Westropp, 5th Foot
Capt. Thos. Gibbings, 23d Foot
Lieut. Myrick Shaw, 4th Foot
Lieut. William Cox, 5th Foot
Lieut. John Browne, 23d Foot
Ensign Florintius Boscawen 3d F. Guards
Ensign Robert Haddin 5th Foot

Stephen Payne Adye Esqr Deputy Judge Advocate
Members

The President, Members and Judge Advocate being duly sworn.

William Johnstone private soldier in His Majesty’s 43d Regiment of Foot was brought prisoner before the Court and accused of plundering, & the following Witnesses were examined in support of the Charge viz:

Lieutenant Colonel Robert Abercrombie of His Majesty’s 37th Regt of Foot, being duly sworn, deposed that on the Morning of the 27th Instant he met the prisoner going towards his out post, having in his hand a pretty large bundle, wrapped up in a blue and white calico Curtain, that he made him open it, and found it to contain some things of the same nature as the calico, he thinks that there was a Woman’s Gown amongst them, but with regard to this circumstance he cannot be positive; that he asked him whither he was going and he replied that he was going to this Battalion, meaning the 2d Battalion of Light Infantry, but he had then passed the Battalion several Miles, and was going the contrary way, that he afterwards asked him where he had got that Bundle of Goods and he answered from a Grenadier, upon which he ordered him to be confined; that about two hours afterwards he received a Letter from Major Cuyler, informing him that it was the General’s Order that he should endeavour to find out a soldier of the Light Infantry, who had robbed a Countryman of the name of Taylor (and by whom the Note was sent) that upon showing him the bundle, the Prisoner had been found in possession of, he claimed part of the things it contained, particularly the blue and white Calico curtain, and the Deponent then sent him to Head Quarters with the Countryman.
Q. Did the Countryman say that the Prisoner was the man, who had taken the things from him?
A. He did not.

Thomas Mudd Corporal in the 17th Regt of Foot, being duly sworn deposed that he commanded the Guard when the prisoner was put in Confinement, & he then had a bundle, in which were a blue and white Calico Curtain, a Woman’s gown, a small piece of Cloth, of the same colour as the Curtain, and a small white earthen pot, containing butter; and he heard a Countryman, upon being shewn these different Articles, claim all of them as his property, except the Woman’s gown, which he said he could not with certainty say, belonged to him.
Q. Did he hear the Countryman say that the Prisoner had taken those things from him?
A. No, he said that he did not know the Prisoner, nor did he know the man that took them from him.
Q. Did the Countryman say whether he was in his own house at the time the things were taken away?
A. He did not.

The Prisoner being then put upon his defence, said that on the morning Lieutenant Colonel Abercrombie met him, he had been to the rear of the Battalion he belonged to, in order to see an acquaintance, and on returning back among a Party of Grenadiers whom he met, on their return from a foraging party, there was one, who had a bundle, and calling to him (the Prisoner) he said, Light Infantry man will you take this. That upon asking him what it was, he answered that it was something which would be of service to him when he went to Camp, that soon after getting the bundle, he met Lieut. Col. Abercrombie, who examined him, and asked him where he was going, and he answered to his Battalion; that he was then rather in the rear of his Battalion, being between the first and second Battalion of Light Infantry, and had he not been stopped by Lieut. Colonel Abercrombie, he should have gone to this Battalion by a Lane which turned off to the left hand and led to the Battalion.

The Court having considered the evidence against the Prisoner William Johnstone together with what he had to offer in his Defence, is of Opinion that he is not guilty of the crime laid to his charge, & doth therefore acquit him.

Harry Trelawny Capt in the Coldstream Guards & Lt. Col. in the Army President

Stepn Pn AdyeDeputy Judge Advocate

Confirmed but Disapproved
W. Howe

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Comments, sources, and Edmond Mooney, 55th Regiment

2010-04-25T12:03:00.000-07:00

Thanks to those readers who have posted (legible) comments on this blog. For some reason, many of the comments are not readable, apparently because they require character sets that are not supported on my browser. Because there are many such comments, I sometimes miss the legible ones.

One reader asked about sources. Excellent question. I haven't been included citations in these posts just to make them easier to read. But if you would like the specific sources used for any post, please contact me using the email address described in the 'About the Author' information. Most of the information comes from three sources: muster rolls, proceedings of courts martial, and soldiers' discharges. Muster rolls tell us the dates in which men served in specific companies of a regiment, and dates of events such as promotions, transfers, desertions and discharges - so when I give this sort of information, it probably came from the muster rolls in the War Office 12 collection in the National Archives of England.

In the same archive is a collection of trial proceedings from general courts martial. These fascinating documents record the testimony of witnesses and defendants at military trials for major crimes. Most of the postings that tell stories of incidents like thefts and murders are amalgams of the trial testimony; usually the trial will be mentioned in the post.

When a soldier was discharged from the army he was given a document (called a discharge) that recorded much valuable information. Most discharges include some information on the man's background (place of birth, age, trade, etc.), some description of his military service, and a statement about why he was entitled to be discharged. Because soldiering was generally a lifelong career, men were discharged from the army only when they were no longer fit for service (there were exceptions). The document was critical for the man to prove that he was lawfully discharged and not a deserter. Some soldiers were awarded pensions, and when they did the pension office retained a copy of the discharge. These discharges survive in the National Archives, and are the source of most of the information in these blog posts concerning age, trade, nativity and such.

Various other sources are also used, but these three constitute the majority. If you need a specific source, please ask for it.

Here's an example of the information that we can get just from a discharge:

Edmond Mooney was born in county Cork, Ireland in 1749 and learned the trade of a sawyer. He joined the 55th Regiment of Foot at the age of 21 in late 1770. Five years later the 5' 6 1/2" tall Mooney was with the regiment when in landed in Boston.

The first significant action seen by the 55th came in August 1776 when the regiment was part of the army that routed American forces on Long Island. The British army did suffer a number of casualties in their overwhelming victory; one of them was Edmond Mooney who was wounded in the right hip.

Mooney apparently recovered from his wound fairly quickly, for he was with his regiment on 3 January 1777 in the battle of Princeton. Here he was wounded again, this time in the left leg.

He recovered from this wound too, and continued to serve in the 55th Regiment for another 15 years. This included service in the harsh climate of the West Indies in the closing years of the American Revolution. He took his discharge from the army in Dublin in March of 1792 at the age of 43, having served in the 55th Regiment for 21 1/2 years. He received an out pension from Kilmainham Hospital in Dublin. His discharge notes that “He is discharged, being worn out & unfit for further Service, having served in North America & the West Indies, and been Twice wounded, during the late War, Once in his Right Hip in Long Island near New York, and Once in his Left Leg at Princetown, in New Jersey-”. An army surgeon verified Mooney's condition, noting on the discharge that he "has the mark of the wounds described on the other side & is worn out by the Effects of foreign climates & long service.”

It bears noting that Mooney signed his own name on the document, suggesting that he knew how to read and write. While his name is given on the discharge as "Edward", he signed himself as "Edmond."

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Pensioner: Hubert Römer, 22nd Regiment of Foot

2010-04-09T11:42:00.000-07:00

Hubert Römer was born in Trier in Germany, around 1749. At the age of 26, this illiterate Catholic laborer became one of some 2,000 European recruits enlisted to bolster the strength of British regiments serving in America. The story of these men is detailed in my article Forty German Recruits.

Thanks to a detailed return made when these recruits embarked, we know each man’s age, religion, and height (Römer was 5’ 8” tall). We also know whether they had prior military service and whether they had wives with them (Römer had neither). Having embarked in May 1776 and landed in New York in late October, we would not expect these recruits to have received regimental clothing until very late in 1776 or early 1777, since annual clothing shipments typically arrived in America late in the year. A War Office letter to regimental colonels discussing finances associated with the German recruits confirms this:

The above German Recruits having been furnished with a Slop Cloathing, I am to desire that you would inform the respective Colonels to which you are agent, that it is expected they should be at the expence of the said Slop Clothing, if no other Clothing has been furnish'd for them for the year 1775.

We often think of “slop clothing” as synonymous with sailor’s clothing, but this is not the case; “slop clothing” referred instead to cheap unfitted clothing that could be purchased in bulk. When the German recruits joined their regiments in America, this is how they were clothed until regimentals could be fitted for them.

Römer was put into Captain Edward Handfield’s company of the 22nd Regiment where he served the entire war. The only distinguishing event that we are aware of is his court martial for desertion in Rhode Island. In August of 1778 the Rhode Island garrison was under siege in Newport, resisting America’s first cooperative military operation with her new French allies. Two weeks after the siege was lifted, Römer stood trial for an infraction that occurred at the height of it. The proceedings of his trial tell the story:

Prisoner Hubertus Reimar, of the 22d Regiment and Captain Handfield's Company being brought before the Court, was charged with being guilty of Desertion.

Interpreter Serjeant Cling of the 54th Regiment was sworn to duly Interpret all Evidences delivered by Foreigners, and explain to the Prisoner, who is a German, those delivered by the British ones against him.

1st Evidence Serjeant George Reason, of the same Regiment and Company with the Prisoner, being duly sworn deposes, that early on the Morning of the 14th of August, the Prisoner was absent, that on examining his Necessaries, three Shirts and two pair of Stockings were missing, and that the same day the Prisoner was brought to his Regiment by two Soldiers of the Anspach Corps, and adds, the Regiment was at that time encamped within the lines of Newport, as also, that till then, the Prisoner had always behaved himself well.

2d Evidence John William Brown, Grenadier in the Anspach Regiment of Voit, being duly sworn deposes, (the same being interpreted to the Court) that being Sentry on the outside of the Abattees, about ten o'Clock one night, he heard a noise in front of him, on which he Challenged, but receiving no reply fired, when the prisoner called out to him, and the other Soldier who was posted with him and desired them not to fire again, as he was coming in to them, that he then came up to them and said, he had lost his way, and appeared to be in liquor, but desired them to take him to the Regiment.

3rd Evidence John Free, private soldier in the same Regiment with the former Evidence being duly sworn, deposes, (the same being interpreted to the Court) in substance as the foregoing Evidence, with whom he was posted Sentry when the prisoner was taken by them.

Defence

The Prisoner Hubertus Reimar, being called to, and put on his Defence, says he was in Liquor when he went from his Tent, and had no design to Desert the Regiment.

The Court having heard and considered the Evidence against the Prisoner Hubertus Reimar, as also his Defence is of Opinion, he is not Guilty of the Crime laid to his Charge and doth therefore Acquit him.

It is striking that the court acquitted Römer, considering that he had taken his necessaries (that is, his shirts, shoes and stockings; it is strange that the court did not ask what happened to them) and was beyond the front lines during a siege. Apparently the fact that Römer was coming in to the lines and willingly turned himself over to the sentries made a very strong impression on the court.

We have no other information on Römer until his discharge in 1783, when he took advantage of the offer of land grants in Canada. He was among a large contingent of discharged soldiers and their families that sailed from New York to Shelburne, Nova Scotia (at that time called Port Roseway) in late September. The following year he received a grant on the island of Saint John; land grant records show that he had no wife or family at this time, so he was entitled to 100 acres. This landholding venture apparently went poorly, for Römer received a new a new copy of his discharge from the 22nd Regiment in 1789 when the regiment was serving at Dover Castle in England. It appears from this that Römer had returned to England, but this is not certain. Regardless, he was recommended for a military out-pension because his eight years of service had rendered him “rheumatic”. His trade is listed as “labourer.” Rather than a signature, the discharge bears “his mark”, indicating that he was illiterate (in spite of the common assertion that most British soldiers were illiterate, about 60% of surviving discharges bear signatures of the soldiers; while a signature alone is not proof of literacy, it suggests that the ability to write was more common than generally believed).

This is a very rare case of a soldier for whom we have many surviving documents: a description on an embarkation return, a service record from muster rolls, the proceedings of a court martial, two land grant records (for the same grant), and a discharge filed among pension documents (with descriptive details that match the embarkation return). Would that we had as much for every British soldier.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

William Whitlow, Musician, 44th Regiment of Foot

2010-03-24T12:27:00.000-07:00

Among the soldiers serving in the 44th Regiment of Foot in late 1779 was a private named William Whitlow. He was in many ways typical of career soldiers in the British army: he had been in the regiment for at least 14 years (and may in fact have been born in the regiment); he was married, his wife was with him in the regiment, and they had a child; he played a musical instrument, and performed in the regimental band in addition to his usual duties as a private soldier. Unfortunately we do not know his age, but evidence suggests that he was younger than 25. He may have started his career both in the army and in music by playing the fife at a young age.

Whitlow was described as 'a Mild, discreet and Well behaved Man'; as for his marriage, 'there was not a happier Couple in the Regiment.' Usually. But William Whitlow had a problem. As a child he had fallen from a wall in Kinsale, Ireland, and hit his head. This caused him pain sometimes, and worse than that it subjected him to occasional bouts of irrational behavior. The problem was compounded by drinking. It was well known in the regiment that excessive drinking deprived Whitlow of his senses. The commander of his company had more than once confined him when he was drunk 'to prevent him doing his Wife & Child an Injury.'

During the time the 44th Regiment was in America, beginning in 1775, these bouts of insanity had gotten worse. The serjeant who was master of the 44th's band related that 'when they went to practice, he has frequently known the Prisoner get up, flourish his Instrument about, and indeed would not obey any Order that was given him; and in fact he has always been obliged in those Cases to let him have his Frenzy out.' When out of his sense he would express delusions that his wife was cheating on him with other soldiers, and wish her away from him. Soldiers who had known Whitlow all his life discerned that these events could occur when he was completely sober, although others might attribute the behavior to intoxication. No one had any reason to suspect anything of his wife.

In September 1779 Whitlow, his wife and other of the 44th Regiment were on a transport ship that was being tossed by heavy seas. Perhaps it was the erratic motion of the ship, or perhaps it was just the progression of his malady, but William Whitlow was exhibiting strange behavior. He was seen running around the deck like a madman. On one occasion he left his wife and child in their berth, went to a group of sailors in steerage and accused them of having his wife with them. For nearly an hour he ranted and no one could convince him that his family was right where he'd left them. When he did return to his wife he claimed that he knew where she'd been and told her that he had been 'talking to three little Devils upon Deck.' Soon after a non-commissioned officer found him beating his wife; when asked why, he replied 'Why should not I beat her, when I this Moment saw her in the Steerage with a Sailor on top of her.' One night when he was standing sentry at a hatchway on the ship, he approached the serjeant-major and insisted that he had been with his wife and had her hidden behind him in his watchcoat.

The next morning other soldiers observed Whitlow and his wife sitting on a berth at breakfast. They could not hear their conversation, but observed Whitlow repeatedly hold his fist to her face between draughts from a quart mug. Whitlow got up and asked another soldier 'if it was true what they said of him?' The soldier responded that he did not know what was said of him. Whitlow considered this for a few seconds then returned muttering to his wife. Moments later, Whitlow picked up a rusty bayonet from the deck and thrust it towards his wife. She cried out and a soldier ran up and grabbed the bayonet, but not before it had penetrated about an inch and a half into her upper chest. Soldiers wrenched the bayonet from him, wrestled him to the deck and tied him up. Whitlow seemed crazy like madman and ranted that he meant to kill his wife, his child and then himself. He continued to rave as he was carried up to the main deck and was confined.

Soldiers attended to Mrs. Whitlow, and the master of the transport advised putting lint on the wound. As she recovered she frequently said that she forgave her husband, telling one of the band members that she believed he wounded her because he had too much love for her. The wound became putrid; two days after the stabbing the master of the transport examined it and found it full of vermin. He washed it with rum and applied some medication. After two more dressings and two more days it appeared to have healed, but she still complained of pain.

The storm continued to rage, and so did William Whitlow. He managed to escape confinement and jumped overboard; in spite of the weather, sailors managed to recover him. He said that the rest of the regiment had gone to another ship and he was determined to go there too, which was the reason for his leap into the sea. The masts of the ship were carried away by the storm. The heaving of the ship left Mrs. Whitlow in a weak state, and although her would appeared healed she suddenly developed a yellow pale. Within a week after receiving the wound, she died.

The following month William Whitlow was put on trial in New York for the murder of his wife. Witnesses related the various vignettes described here, from events of his childhood to the details and aftermath of the stabbing. Whitlow remembered none of it. Soldiers who'd known him their entire lives testified to his bouts of insanity, while others less intimate described his insensibility when intoxicated. He had no recollection of the stabbing, of having jumped overboard, or of having been tied down for several days afterward. He made a final declaration to the court that he never had the least reason to be jealous of his wife, and was convinced that she was always faithful to him.

The court found him guilty of causing his wife's death, but acquitted him of murder because 'he was in a State of Lunacy at the time.' He was not punished.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Died in America: David Stuart, 22nd Regiment of Foot

2010-03-15T06:55:00.000-07:00

Much of the personal information that we have on British soldiers - age, place of birth, trade and similar details - comes from data recorded when they received pensions. If a man died while still in the army, he clearly did not receive a pension, and unfortunately we often know nothing more about him than his name and the dates of his service reported on muster rolls.

We are fortunate that one soldier of the 22nd Regiment left a document that reveals more about him and his situation. David Stuart joined the regiment on 1 April 1766. The fact that he joined as a serjeant indicates that he had prior military service about which we have no information. He served in several companies, joining the grenadier company on June 1776 just in time for the spectacular American campaigns under General Howe that put the grenadier and light infantry battalions in the forefront of numerous famous actions. Stuart seems to have come through all of these unscathed, from Brooklyn and the subsequent fighting in 1776, engagements in New Jersey in early 1777, Brandywine and Germantown later that year, the 1778 battle of Monmouth which saw eight men of his company killed, and the siege of Charleston early 1780.

In Autumn of 1780 fate caught up with David Stuart, not from battle but from illness. He died in New York on 14 October 1780, but he must have known the end was near because he prepared a will four days beforehand. His simple testament reads:

In the name of God Amen. I, David Stuart, Serjeant in the Grenadier Company of His Majesty’s 22d Regiment, and acting Quartermaster in the second Batalion of British Grenadiers. I leave my wife, Mary Stuart, otherwise Smith, all my estate, real and personal, and all arrears of pay, and she is to pay all debts. And she shall pay to my only son, James Stuart, aged nine years, one half of what I shall die possessed of. I make my wife executor.

We do not know the value of Stuart's "estate, real and personal", but it could have been significant. Although much is made of poor pay in the British army, a non-commissioned rank offered not only higher pay but also opportunities for additional earning in staff appointments. Stuart was serving as quarter master for the pro tem grenadier battalion, and may have had a number of similar appointments during his 14 years as a serjeant in the 22nd Regiment.

The will tells us that he had married a woman named Mary Smith. We assume that they had a son James together but it is possible that James was David Stuart's son by a previous marriage, as suggested by the will's direction that she pay half of the estate to James.

The will was witnessed by three other serjeants of grenadier companies - Alexander Stuart of the 22nd Regiment (who may have been a relative of David), George Thompson of the 63rd and David White of the 64th. The will was proved on 6 November 1780.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

John Lloyd and James Nowland, recruits, 22nd Regiment

2010-03-02T12:58:00.000-08:00

John Lloyd and James Nowland were British army recruits who joined the 22nd Regiment of Foot in American in 1779. Although they arrived in America together, their backgrounds were as different as can be. So were their fates.

John Lloyd was born in Shrewsbury, Shrophsire, in 1757 the west midlands of England. His parents wer somewhat wealthy, apparently owning farmland. John's father died when he was still a child, leaving his mother, Hannah Lloyd, a considerable fortune. In June 1775 she remarried. This opened the risk that her fortune would go to her new husband if anything happened to her. To protect him against any risk of impoverishment, she set up a trust fund for him insuring that, regardless of what fortunes met the family, John would be paid the sum of £150. Rather than stay in Shropshire, however, John did what many young men of all classes did - he joined the army, probably some time in 1778. His place and date of enlistment are not known, but he was sent for training to the depot at Chatham Barracks outside London. From there he wrote to his mother on 22 March 1779 that he was in the 22nd Regiment and would soon be embarking either for America or the West Indies. Four days later he was on board a transport ship.

James Nowland was considerably older, having been born in 1743. An Irishman, is place of birth is not known, but he was among the many Irish Catholics who joined the army even though the letter of the law prohibited it; the exigencies of war took priority over the niceties of recruiting regulations, and although enlistment required a recruit to attest that he was a Protestant many men surely just paid lip service to the assertion. There is no information to suggest whether Nowland had any prior military service. The age of 35 was not typical for enlistment, but neither was it unprecedented; Nowland could have been a voluntary enlistee, a draft from another regiment, or a vagrant rounded up under the new and wildly unpopular army press act of 1778. It is not clear whether he boarded a troop transport in Ireland or was first sent to Chatham Barracks, but one way or the other he was in the same group of 63 recruits sent to the 22nd Regiment in 1779.

The fleet of transports escorted by British warships carried four complete regiments and a substantial number of recruits - almost 1300 for the British infantry regiments in America, and more for the Brigade of Guards, the Royal Artillery, and the German regiments. Their voyage went badly from the beginning. The men who embarked at Chatham on 26 March remained on board while the fleet picked up more transports at Plymouth. By late April the fleet was read to sail, but as they plied the waters off Torbay waiting for favorable winds news came that the French were making a descent on the British channel islands of Jersey and Guernsey. The admiral commanding the fleet took the warships and the troop transports, leaving other ships at Torbay, and made for the island on 2 May. Four days later they arrived to find that a French attack had been repulsed; the admiral left a small but sufficient force of ships to protect the islands and took the transports and troops back to Torbay. The delay had cost a week, and now weather conditions had turned unfavorable. It was not until the end of the month that they were finally able to get underway into the Atlantic, the troops from Chatham having been on board ship for two months before even leaving British waters. The voyage from Torbay to New York took 13 weeks, and during this time illness in the form of scurvy set in. They did not reach New York until 25 August, by which time a quarter of the British recruits were sick and another 43 had died.

The first muster rolls to show these new men show that conditions grew worse after they landed in New York. Nearly all of the 63 recruits for the 22nd Regiment were sick. The regiment itself was still in Rhode Island, but when that place was evacuated at the end of October they joined the New York garrison. Although many of the recruits eventually recovered to serve with the regiment, a third of them died within their first year in America.

Among the dead was John Lloyd, the young man from Shropshire with a wealthy mother and a trust fund. He died in Jamaica, Long Island on 11 January 1780. His mother did not learn of his death until four years later when she engaged an attorney to track him down. By this time the regiment was back in England and the adjutant, responding to the lawyer's letter which had been conveyed through the regimental agent, examined the regimental books and confirmed that Lloyd had joined the regiment and died in America. The information was critical because Hannah Lloyd's new husband had gone bankrupt and the family lands were being sold off to pay his debts. With her only son gone for a soldier and now gone from the world, her fortune was lost.

James Nowland was also listed as sick on the first muster rolls in America, but he recovered. Just as nothing distinguished his life before joining the army nothing distinguished his career as a soldier; his name appears duly on the rolls until the end of the war. At that time, men who had enlisted after 1775 were entitled to be discharged and had the option of returning to Great Britain or taking a land grant in Canada. He chose the latter along with 85 other men from the 22nd, and landed at Shelburne, Nova Scotia (at that time called Port Roseway) in the closing months of 1783. He received his land. He farmed. In his late 50s, he married and then had a remarkable 11 children before his wife died in 1829. On 30 June 1840 he scrawled his mark on a deposition for relief under a act passed during the second year of the reign of Queen Victoria. He was living in the parish of Glenelg, New Brunswick, and at the age of 93 submitted that he was no longer able to support himself. He was granted relief of 10 pounds per year which he was still collecting in 1843 at the age of 100, but he is known to have passed away before one of his sons married five years later. Descendants of his, still carrying the Nowland name, live in Canada to this day.

Such were the disparate fates of two men who became soldiers, one who began with promise and the other who ended with a legacy.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Pensioner: Alexander Sheppard, 16th Light Dragoons

2010-02-22T19:56:00.000-08:00

Our previous installment dealt with a soldier of the 4th Regiment who stole a horse and was chased by a trooper of the 16th Light Dragoons, Alexander Sheppard. We are fortunate to have details on Sheppard's long career as a horse soldier.

Sheppard was born in about 1736 in Manchester, England, and pursued the trade of a calendar man. This was one of many skills in the highly-developed British textile industry, involving using a hot press to make a smooth finish on cloth. At the age of 26, however, he changed careers and joined the army; September 1776 found him disembarking in America with the 16th (Queen's) Light Dragoons. His experience as a sentry on the night after the Battle of Germantown is described in the previous installment; note that he was 42 years old when he successfully chased down a British light infantryman. When the British army evacuated Philadelphia in June 1778, Sheppard and his regiment returned to New York.

The following year, the 16th Light Dragoons were ordered back to Great Britain. In typical fashion, all of the men who were still fit for foreign service were drafted into other regiments serving in America. 94 men were drafted into the only other British regular cavalry regiment in America, the 17th Light Dragoons; Alexander Sheppard was among them. Soon after, he was in the detachment of the regiment sent on the expedition to Charleston, South Carolina.

We don't know the circumstances, but some time in 1780 Sheppard was injured in such a way as to lose the use of his right hand. On the muster rolls prepared on 4 February 1781, he is listed as having been "Invalided gone to England." Once there, his infirmity along with his long service earned him an out-pension, granted on 10 April 1781 at the age of 45 after 19 years as a soldier.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Died in America: John Wilkins, 4th Regiment of Foot

2010-02-13T20:56:00.000-08:00

John Wilkins was a seasoned soldier in the 4th (King's Own) Regiment of Foot. He was a private soldier in the regiment when it arrived in Boston in 1774, and at the end of 1776 was among those selected for the regiment's light infantry company. This company was formed of experienced troops who were limber, quick and well suited for rapid movement and open-order skirmishing. The 4th's light company was among those that fought on the opening day of hostilities on 19 April 1775, and then suffered terribly in the abortive flanking movement at Bunker Hill the following June. Brought up to strength by transferring experienced soldiers from the regiment's eight battalion companies, the lights became part of the 1st Battalion of Light Infantry, a corps that was in the forefront of the spectacularly successful campaign around New York and into New Jersey in the fall of 1776. Although repeatedly victorious, the companies in the battalion had suffered numerous casualties in their roll at the vanguard of the army. They were replenished again at the end of 1776, with John Wilkins among the replacements.

The battalion remained active throughout 1777, first during campaigning in New Jersey and then during the aggressive campaign to Philadelphia in August and September. The battalion almost met with disaster when their encampment was suprised by an overwhelming American force at Germantown outside of Philadelphia on 4 October 1777. The American attack fell into confusion and the arrival of substantial British reinforcements turned the tide, prevent a rout of the light infantry. The 4th's light company suffered three men killed and several wounded in the fight. It was on the night after this famous action that John Wilkins was shot and killed, but the circumstances were quite different than we might expect from finding him listed as "died" on the regiment's muster rolls.

At midnight on the night of 4-5 October, trooper Alexander Sheppard of the 16th (Queen's) Light Dragoons was posted sentry over the troops horses that were tied on a picket line in Germantown. About a half hour later one of the horses got loose, and Sheppard quickly went to secure it. As he was doing so, someone came towards him in the darkness and said, "You bougre, are you sentry over those horses?"

Sheppard replied that he was. The stranger then said, "If I can get to you, I'll give you a good licking."

Sheppard told the man to go about his business, as he had nothing to say to him. Sheppard then secured the horse, took it to the line and tied it up. As he was doing so, the man who'd accosted him untied the leftmost horse in the line and made off with it. After Sheppard tied up the loose horse he went along the line to see that the rest were secure. When he found that the end horse was missing, he saw the stranger running off with it and called to him. The stranger responded, "Kiss my arse, you bougre," and continued leading the horse away.

Sheppard guessed that the man was a rebel prisoner who had gotten loose and wanted the horse to speed his escape. He quickly woke the corporal of the guard, Roger Thorne; Thorne suggested that the thief was "the foolish man called Billy the Ram," apparently referring to a colorful local character who bore this common sobriquet. Sheppard said that Billy the Ram would not have used such language, and told Thorne to get a carbine or pistol and follow him after the fleeing stranger.

Sheppard then gave chase, calling for the horse thief to stop. The thief continued to respond with abusive language. They ran along the road out of town and up a hill, then turned into an orchard were Sheppard managed to catch the thief and began to struggle with him. As they struggled, Corporal Thorne arrived, having himself grabbed one of his pistols and given chase. Thorne had a particular interest in recovering the horse; some time before, when he was a Lance Corporal (a private soldier doing a corporal's duty) he had been tried by a regimental court martial because a horse had gotten loose from some sentries that he commanded. This time he was determined not to be humiliated. Rather than join the struggle between Sheppard and the thief, he told Sheppard to back off and then shot the thief in the chest from about six feet away.

The thief staggered backwards and began saying "I ask you pardon," then fell. Having more interest in recovering a lost horse than in assisting an escaped rebel prisoner turned horse thief, Thorne and Sheppard left him there. Thorne went to report the incident to the serjeant-major of the regiment, but the serjeant-major had not stayed in his usual lodgings that night and Thorne could not find him. Instead Thorne gave his report first thing in the morning. In the mean time, Sheppard had gone back to the orchard during the night and seen that the thief had died.

The dead man was not an escaped prisoner, nor was it Billy the Ram. It was John Wilkins, private soldier in the light infantry company of the 4th Regiment of Foot. On Monday, 6 October, Corporal Thorne was tried by a general court martial for the murder of a fellow soldier.

At the trial, Alexander Sheppard gave his account of the events. The court asked if he could see Wilkins' uniform, but Sheppard testified that it was too dark. The serjeant-major explained that both Sheppard and Thorne had been sober when paraded for guard on the evening of 4 October, and also that the following morning several people told him that Thorne had been trying to find him the night before. He also noted that Thorne was not prone to quarrels or disputes, and so he was particularly surprised to hear that he had been involved in the shooting. An officer of the regiment testified that Thorne had been in the regiment for four years and was "a sober quiet man, and of an unexceptionable character"; he noted that the Major of the regiment would also have testified to Thorne's good character but was unable to attend the trial.

There was no indication in the trial of what might have caused John Wilkins' unusual behavior. The court judged that Corporal Roger Thorne had acted in accordance with his duty, and acquitted him.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Escapee and Pensioner: Stewart Mason, 40th Regiment

2010-02-03T18:07:00.000-08:00

When the 40th Regiment of Foot embarked at Cork, Ireland in May 1775, included in its ranks was a young corporal named Stewart Mason. Born in the little parish of North Leith outside of Edinburgh, he had joined the army in 1768 at just 15 years of age. Such a young enlistment was not common but certainly not unprecedented. His quick rise to a non-commissioned rank shows that he was a good soldier, probably able to read and write, and clearly prepared for a career in the army.

Mason ran into some misfortune in America. In the closing stages of the battle of Princeton on 3 January 1777, Mason was among 77 men of the 40th taken prisoner. He may have been among those who surrendered at Nassau Hall, the central building of what would become Princeton University. Because he spent the next year in captivity he missed the October 1777 battle of Germantown where part of the 40th again found itself holed up in a building, this time with quite different results.

The Princeton prisoners were set to confinement in Connecticut. Typical of British prisoners of war throughout the American Revolution, they escaped in considerable numbers; several were advertised in newspapers throughout 1777. Stewart Mason did not make his break until April 1778, as evidenced by an ad placed by an American commissary of prisoners:

Made his escape from Windsor, one Stuart Mason a British prisoner, he is about 23 years of age small of Stature, fair complexion, a large scar under his chin. Whoever will bring said fellow to the goal in Hartford shall have a handsome reward and necessary charges paid by Ezek. Williams Com. Prisoners.

[Connecticut Courant, 14 April 1778]

Mason made a clean getaway, probably into New York. On the 40th Regiment's muster rolls for the first half of 1778 he no longer appears as "prisoner with the rebels" and is once again a corporal.

The 40th Regiment was one of several sent to the West Indies at the end of 1778. The next rolls for the 40th were prepared on the island of Antigua in 1780. By this time Mason had become a serjeant, and he remained in this capacity when the regiment returned to New York for the final years of the war in 1781. He served in the regiment until 1795 when he was discharged and received a pension for 27 years of service. A career military man, however, he went back into the army on the staff of a barracks in Great Britain. He was finally discharged from that post and returned to the pension rolls in 1805.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Luke Murphy, William Gibbs, and Servants in the 38th Regiment

2010-01-13T11:53:00.000-08:00

Each officer in a regiment was allowed to retain a soldier as his personal servant. A senior officer might retain a second soldier to care for his horse in a role called a bat-man (from the French term bat, a pack saddle). The servant performed tasks such as maintaining his officer’s clothing, shaving him and helping him dress, packing and unpacking baggage, setting up a tent while on campaign, caring for his horse (if the officer could not retain a bat-man), running all manner of errands from delivering messages to purchasing necessities, and any other chores required by a busy officer and gentleman. In return, the soldier typically received a shilling per week from the officer, a sum that not only increased his overall pay by about 35% but which was not subject to the withholdings imposed on his base pay. Bennett Cuthbertson, author of one of the most popular military texts of the era, A System for the Compleat Interior Management and Œconomy of a Battalion of Infantry, wrote several paragraphs on servants and bat-men:

It being an indulgence granted to the Infantry, for the officers to have Servants and Bat-men, from the Company they belong to, care should be taken, that they are always chose from the Centre-rank, as being employed for any time in that capacity, often hurts them as Soldiers, from the unavoidable indulgence by that means shewn them; it therefore must be an injury to the appearance of a Battalion, to hazard such a chance with Men, whose size and figure are an ornament to it.

The Wages given to Servants and Bat-men, should be the same, from the Colonel to the Subaltern, and never ought to exceed one shilling -per- Week, by which means, the discontent and insolence, that are often experienced in those, who perhaps may have smaller wages than others, might be in a great measure be restrained, and the Ensign be served with as great attention as the Field-officer.

It ought always to be a fixed rule, that when a Servant or Bat-man quits the Service of an Officer, for misbehaviour, no other Officer in the Regiment should ever take him; and least such and event, might in the course of years, be subject to oblivion, by changes and removals in a Corps, it should be particularly marked down, in a registry to be kept for that purpose, in the Regimental Book of casualties, by which method, the conduct of those Men must in general be more satisfactory, and a greater Number of good Servants be thereby found, than are usually so in most Regiments.

It is highly improper to take a Recruit for a Servant or Bat-man, until he has been long enough in the Regiment, to encourage an Officer to place so high a confidence in him; at ant rate, it should never be allowed, until he is perfectly informed of every part of his Duty as a Soldier, otherwise he will probably never be thoroughly confirmed in it.

It being impossible for Soldiers, who are Servants or Bat-men, to keep their Regimentals clean and in proper order, if obliged to do the work required from them, in that dress; and as their being dirtier in the Ranks, than other Soldiers can never be admitted, it should be expected, that every Officer provided some kind of frock for his Servant, to prevent so great an inconvenience.

That the Duty may be as little severe as possible, upon the other Soldiers, by having both Servants and Bat-men taken from the Companies, the former should always mount guard, and go on Commands, whenever their Masters do; but as to the others, it will be impossible to spare them, from the care of the Horses they attend, in which they will find sufficient employment, if they perform it as they ought.

Unless on some very particular occasions, the Officers Servants should never be excused from Exercise, or weekly reviews of Arms and neccessaries, that they may not entirely forget their Duty in the ranks, and to remind them of their being Soldiers; the remembrance of which will be found to contribute very much to their good behaviour as Servants, and prevent them from contracting many saucy habits, which might otherwise be the case.

Notice the explicit direction to provide “some kind of frock” so that the regimentals would not be worn out. References to British soldier-servants wearing non-regimental garb are scattered throughout the literature, including two cases pertaining to the 38th Regiment in Boston which mention similar clothing worn by two different servants.

At around midnight on the night of 1st and 2nd August 1774, a sentry belonging to the 43rd Regiment challenged a man who approached his post between the encampments of the 38th and 43rd regiments. The man, dressed in a light brown frock coat and cut round hat, answered that he was a friend but was unable to give the countersign. The sentry called the serjeant of the guard and they detained the man, who protested that he was on his way to his master, Captain Fox of the 38th, in town. The guards took their prisoner to the quarter guard of the 38th Regiment, where a serjeant identified him as Luke Murphy, a private soldier in Captain Norman’s company. The quarter guard serjeant noted Murphy’s non-uniform coat and hat, but discerned that he was wearing regimental breeches and also that he was quite drunk. Murphy was then taken to the officer of the guard, Lt. Sutherland of the 38th. Sutherland questioned Murphy about his intentions, and Murphy asserted that his actions were due solely to the effects of liquor and not any intention to desert. Sutherland nonetheless confined Murphy to the guard tent with a sentry posted over him.

When tried by a general court a few days later, Murphy offered a detailed and lucid response that strongly suggests a well-educated and reasonable man, in spite of prior drunkenness. Murphy testified that after being “dismissed from the Drill” he and a comrade went to visit a friend in the 5th Regiment where they “drank pretty freely.” When they returned to their own tent Murphy’s tent mate “ask'd me for Liquor for helping me to clean my Arms.” Murphy had no liquor and knew he would not be allowed out of camp to get some, but asked others who had more freedom of movement – first an officer’s servant, then a soldier’s wife, both of whom refused. He even asked the woman’s husband to implore her to go, but to no avail. Determined to have his liquor, Murphy made a plan. Murphy was a tailor, and Lt. Dutton’s servant had left him a brown coat to be mended. Murphy donned the coat, a hat that “was my own which I used to wear on board Ship,” and put his “Canteen Bottle” in the coat pocket. He then tried to pass the sentry.

Deponents in the trial noted interesting details. Murphy was not, nor had ever been a servant. He was wearing all of his regimentals except for the coat and hat. Although he characterized himself as a recruit, a serjeant testified that it was unusual for Murphy to wear “colour’d clothing” since he had received his regimentals – confirming that recruits did wear civilian clothing until they received regimental uniforms. A fellow soldier who “frequently assisted the Prisoner in Cleaning his Arms and Accoutrements” told the court that when the regiment was in Ireland prior to coming to America, Murphy had declared that he would never “follow the Example of his Countrymen” by deserting and that he fully understood his enlistment obligations and was determined to fulfill them. He also clearly understood that servants had more freedom of movement than other soldiers, and knew how to dress like a servant.

Cases like this left the court with a dilemma: there was no question that Murphy was drunk, disorderly and trying to leave camp without permission and in disguise. But he was on trial for desertion, which clearly was not his intention. They acquitted the young soldier of desertion but nonetheless sentenced him to receive 100 lashes for his conduct. Whether this punishment was carried out or not is unknown, but the sentencing seems to have had an effect on Murphy. He deserted on 4 January 1775, never to return.

After Murphy’s trial, but before his desertion, a advertisement appeared in the Boston Post Boy of 5 December 1774 for another deserter from the 38th Regiment:

Five Guineas Reward.

Run away from my Service, and robbed me of two Pieces of fine Linen, besides sundry Articles of wearing Apparel, Will Gibbs, about 5 Feet 7 Inches high, and of a fair Complexion; had on when he went away a brown Coat, turned up with blue, blue Waistcoat and Breeches, and a round Hat. Whoever secures said Runaway, shall receive the above Reward from me, Charles Norman, Capt. 38th Regt.

Though the ad does not make it obvious that Gibbs was a soldier, he appears on the muster rolls of the 38th as a private soldier who deserted on 24 November 1774. He was with the regiment at least from the time of their embarkation in Ireland for America. The wording of the ad suggests that he was a young man kept by an officer until he was old enough to serve in the ranks, but this is only speculation. The blue breeches and waistcoat could be holdovers from civilian dress or livery provided by the officer. There is no evidence that Gibbs ever returned to the 38th Regiment.

The fact that William Gibbs was dressed in a similar manner to Luke Murphy’s servant disguise suggests that the look was a common one. If every officer in a regiment of foot had one servant, and a few also had a bat-man, then three or four men in each company or nearly 10% of the regiment’s typical strength might be employed in this role at any given time. These soldiers in non-regimental clothing were surely a familiar sight.

Several years later, a new officer in the 38th Regiment recorded an amusing anecdote about his servant. Lieutenant George Augustus Wyvill arrived in America too late to participate in any major hostilities. He had only recently joined the regiment in New York when they went on service on the lines at King's Bridge north of the city at the beginning of 1782. Wyvill had a hut built for himself, but then spent the month of March doing guard duty on one of the prison ships in New York harbor. He wrote the following passage about his return from this duty:

On my return, as a great treat, I purchased a fine round of beef, which cost me three pounds. In the evening, returning to my hut, sooner, than expected, I surprised my Servant busily employed eating away, on my expensive beef; with all the luxuries of Mustard &c &c which I had provided for my own supper. I took the liberty, he being quite drunk, of tying him to a Gun. The fellow made me laugh, for, at intervals, he kept exclaiming, "‘Tis too bad, too bad, what, tyed to the Breech, when I never feared to face the Muzzle."

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution

Died in America: John Corrigan, 40th Regiment of Foot

2010-01-10T16:51:00.000-08:00

Carrigan of Ct Duffs Compy was stabb’d by Northington – being got upon his Wife – died in ½ hour. NB Northington after stabbing Carrigan stabb’d his wife & then stabb’d himself & attempted to throw himself again on his bayonet (he wounded himself & wife slightly).

This 15 July 1776 entry in the diary of Captain William Bamford of the 40th Regiment of Foot sounds like the tragic result of a love triangle. The actual story, revealed in testimony at the murder trial that resulted, is quite different.

John Corrigan was a private soldier in the 40th when that regiment embarked in Ireland in May 1775. We have no remarkable information about his service with the regiment while in Boston in 1775 and 1776. The British army evacuated Boston in March and spent the next three months Halifax, Nova Scotia where it regrouped and began preparations for a campaign. During the time in Halifax a party of recruits joined the 40th including William Norrington.

Norrington’s had married a woman named Sarah Flaherty in the village of Killala in County Mayo, Ireland, and she accompanied her soldier husband to America. With the rest of Captain James Duff’s company they sailed from Halifax to New York and landed on Staten Island early in July.

On the night of 15 July 1776, while her husband was on duty as a sentry, Sarah Norrington got very drunk and fell asleep near the back door of a house in which an Lieutenant John Moore of the regiment was quartered. Lt. Moore, concerned for her safety, went to Norrington and suggested that he take her away from the quarters as soon as he came off duty. Since, however, Norrington was due to be relieved in only 15 minutes or so, the Lt. Moore chose to leave him on duty and returned to his quarters. The officer’s concern for the well being of this soldier and his wife is interesting but unfortunately did not prevent the ensuing events.

In the mean time, John Corrigan and some other soldiers were in the barn smoking pipes when they ran out of tobacco. Corrigan and Michael Connolly decided to go to the house for more. Finding that the front door had just been closed for the night when Lt. Moore had returned. Going around to the back of the house, they noticed Sarah Norrington asleep by an outdoor oven on the gable end of the house, sheltered by some boards but in plain view. Corrington recognized her as Norrington’s wife and told Connolly that he was going to go and lay with her.

Connolly chose to look away, but within a minute or two William Norrington came in search of his wife. Seeing Corrigan forcing himself upon her (but not fully understanding the situation) he shouted, “Sally Sally, is that the way you serve me?” He drew his bayonet and stabbed Corrigan in the back below the left shoulder, but the wounded man was able to get up and flee, pulling up his trousers as he ran. Sarah Norrington, still very much in a drunken stupor, rolled onto her side and arranged her petticoats; her husband stabbed her in the side with the bayonet, then attempted to thrust the bayonet into his own stomach. Although he managed to give himself a small wound, his cartridge box apparently deflected the blow and he dropped the bayonet.

At this time Michael Connolly came up and found Norrington in a state of great agitation. Norrington said that he himself was wounded, so Connolly took off Norrington’s cartridge box, which apparently was of the style worn on a belt around the waist which also held a bayonet scabbard. Connolly noticed the bayonet was missing, found it on the ground, and returned it to the scabbard. Norrington asked where the bayonet was, and when Connolly said it was in the scabbard. Norrington seized it, pulled his shirt open, and was about to fall on the bayonet when Connolly prevented him from doing so, pushing the bayonet away.

Corrigan, in the mean time, had run to a few fellow soldiers who also happened to have witnessed the event and walked with them for a few yards before mentioning that he was wounded. The soldiers took him to the house and knocked on the front door. Lt. Moore admitted them, and called for a doctor as soon as it was clear to him that Corrigan was wounded. The surgeon’s mate of the 40th Regiment arrived within a few minutes, but the wound was fatal and John Corrigan died while the surgeon was probing and assessing the wound.

Lt. Moore, hearing some continued noise outside the house, went out and found William and Sarah Norrington both lying wounded. He had them both brought into the house and directed the surgeon’s mate to examine Sarah’s serious wound. The officer asked Norrington who had wounded them, and Norrington replied that he would not implicate anyone else; that he had stabbed Corrigan and Sarah, intending to kill them both, and had intended to kill himself as well. He was confined for murder.

Sarah Norrington’s wound was not life threatening, and William Norrington’s was only superficial. Put on trial for murder a month later, William Norrington was found innocent and acquitted by a general court martial. The court considered the stabbing to be a crime of passion occasioned by the provocation of the scene that he came upon, and therefore even though death resulted it did not “amount to that species of homicide deemed Murder.” Norrington produced his marriage certificate to the court, which he kept in a pocket book; it had been among his baggage still on board a transport ship, and he was allowed to send for it after he was confined.

Unaccountably, William Norrington disappears from the muster rolls of the 40th Regiment of Foot after the trial, leaving no indication of what became of him or his wife. There is no record of him having been discharged from the army, but also no further record of his service in the army. We can only wonder about the fate of this recruit in the 40th Regiment.

18th Century military books and first-hand accounts of the American Revolution